MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

Electoral Commissioners

Liz Blackman: I have to inform the House that the address of 18 July, praying that Her Majesty will appoint as electoral commissioners: (1) Maxwell Marshall Caller CBE for the period ending on 31 December 2011; (2) Henrietta Campbell CB for the period ending on 31 December 2011; (3) Ian Maxwell Kelsall OBE with effect from 19 January 2008 for the period ending 31 December 2012; and (4) John McCormick with effect from 19 January 2008 for the period ending on 31 December 2012, was presented to Her Majesty who was graciously pleased to comply with the request.

Oral Answers to Questions

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Private Security Companies (Iraq)

Willie Rennie: How many private security companies in Iraq are operating under British licence.

Des Browne: There is no British licensing regime for private military and security companies, so the answer is none. However, for completeness, let me add that the Ministry of Defence does not have any contracts with such companies in Iraq, and we have no plans for any.

Willie Rennie: Will the Secretary of State update the House on plans for a system of industry regulation, especially as the Government first proposed it five years ago? What discussions has he had with the Americans on taking a common approach, following the Blackwater incident? In such a volatile environment, is he not concerned that the unprofessional and reckless activities of security companies could prove disastrous and endanger the lives of more civilians, and of members of our forces?

Des Browne: First, no private military and security company operating under British Government contract—there are three such companies operating under contract for other Departments—has ever been implicated in the death or injury of any innocent Iraqi civilians as a result of the discharge of weapons; I should make that clear at the outset. As for the follow-up to the 2002 Green Paper, when the Lord Chancellor was Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs he commissioned a review of policy options for private military and security companies. As I think hon. Members know, the review was completed in 2005, and it raised a number of complex issues that officials are considering in detail. I hope that we can work our way through those complexities shortly. Of course, when a conclusion is reached, Parliament will be informed of the detail. Hon. Members can be reassured that I discuss all aspects of our policy, and United States policy, on Iraq with my counterpart, the Secretary of Defence.

Andrew MacKinlay: May I tell the Secretary of State that we did not know that there was a report within Government in 2005? The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has been asking for and expecting a response to the representations that it made some eight years ago, following the Sandline inquiry and the problems arising from the fact that London is one of the world recruitment capitals for security firms. There is a problem with the interface and relationship between those firms and United Kingdom armed forces, and it needs to be addressed with greater expedition.

Des Browne: I think that my hon. Friend's question betrays the complexity of the issues involved. The problem is defining the activities that should be regulated, and how any regulation of overseas activities might be enforced. That is not an easy matter to resolve. Indeed, the Blackwater incident and its aftermath shows that the United States of America is struggling to do so, given that the regulation of such companies in Iraq currently depends on a coalition provisional authority memorandum. There are a number of complexities with the issue. I am anxious that they be resolved, and that we can come to the House in good time to explain how we will proceed on that area of policy.

James Gray: The Secretary of State sounds reluctant to grasp the nettle on the issue so ably raised by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). Surely there are two problems: that the companies are doing things that the British armed forces would traditionally have done themselves, were it not for overstretch, and that the attraction of some of the companies is such that they pull people out of our armed services to go and work for them at much higher wages. That in itself contributes to overstretch.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman only adds to the complexity of the issues with that qualification. It is not true to suggest that those companies, which are not all, by any stretch of the imagination, within the Government's control, do work that the British Army would otherwise do were it not for overstretch. In fact, in Iraq, the Departments that contract those companies do so to provide security for civilian operators. It is by no means correct that the Army would provide that security in any event or that other military forces would do so. There is no lack of willingness on my part or energy to work our way through the difficulties, but they are significant, and we want to try to get them right before we announce the detailed policy to the House.

Operational Deployments

Crispin Blunt: For what period of time operational deployments are expected to require annual expenditure from the reserve.

Des Browne: The additional costs of operational deployments will be funded from the Treasury reserve for as long as the operational deployments continue.

Crispin Blunt: Given that 7,700 troops are on deployment in Afghanistan—it is rumoured in NATO that Britain will contribute more troops—and given that our ambassador in Afghanistan has spoken of a commitment that might last three decades, it is simply not reasonable to expect the armed forces to have to budget year on year, on the basis of an indefinite commitment. That money should be structured into the defence budget, and the armed forces should not have to come back to the Treasury, year in, year out for a commitment that is going to last decades.

Des Browne: If the money for operations was built into the budget, that is exactly what the armed forces would have to do: they would have to budget within that structure. At present, the armed forces are funded to provide the capability required—operations are funded from the reserve—so that they are not put into that position. May I take the opportunity to scotch the rumour on which the hon. Gentleman drew? Unfortunately, the NATO spokesman, Colonel Appathurai—I hope that I have pronounced his name properly—made an error yesterday. I will not read the detail of the document I have received, but I am happy to place it in the Library. Today, however, he gave a clear explanation in a press conference, in which he admitted that he had inadvertently misled the media yesterday, and that there were no such plans to increase the UK contingent.

Bernard Jenkin: The Secretary of State must be the only person in the House who does not understand that the armed forces are overstretched and under-resourced for the commitments that they have undertaken. When is he going to face up to the fact? If the military has to cancel 10 per cent. of its training every year, the resources are clearly not available for it to do the job and be trained for the job that it is meant to do?

Des Browne: Statistics show that the number of training events is increasing every year. For the year 2004-05, the total of planned training events was 379; for 2005-06, it was 533; and for 2006-07, it was 699. I accept that some of those events were cancelled, but the percentage of cancellations has decreased. I accept, too—I have said so at the Dispatch Box—that we are asking the military to do a significant amount, which has an effect. I have also explained time and again what we plan to do to reduce that pressure.

Julian Lewis: Have not the Government failed in their attempts since 2004 to produce a defence-specific inflation index? They keep trumpeting the fact that they have given the armed forces 1.5 per cent. more than the general level of inflation, but the Royal United Services Institute calculates that defence equipment projects run at 5 to 10 per cent. above the general level of inflation. Does that not mean that the Government's claim that they are spending more on defence in real terms is simply a load of hogwash?

Des Browne: It is not a load of hogwash. I have given the figures, and the Opposition spokesmen must accept, however reluctantly, that there have been real- terms increases. The Opposition face a problem, as there is a £6 billion hole in their spending plans. In our policy debate last Tuesday, I invited the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) to say from the Dispatch Box whether he would match or improve our spending plans. Given that he said he was prepared for an election a couple of weeks ago, the Opposition face a challenge—will they spend more than us and, if so, on what will they spend less?

Afghanistan

David Evennett: What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Afghanistan.

Des Browne: The security situation in Afghanistan is stable, if fragile in places. The Afghan national army and the international forces are helping to extend the authority of the Government of Afghanistan, although there remains a threat from suicide attacks and local ambushes.

David Evennett: Do the Government still believe that the Taliban do not constitute a strategic threat? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why 2.7 million rounds of ammunition were used between June 2006 and September 2007?

Des Browne: There is no correlation between those two issues. Yes, I believe that the Taliban do not pose a strategic threat to the Government of Afghanistan. They are able to carry out some forms of attack, in particular asymmetric attacks, as they are called—suicide bombings and others—that are difficult to defend against. They know that, and those attacks generate a degree of threat that we are trying to deal with, albeit with some difficulty. Otherwise, every time the Taliban have faced up to the forces of the international security assistance force—ISAF—they have been overmatched and defeated. That has happened for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that we have been prepared to use a significant amount of ammunition against them.

Lindsay Hoyle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are facing a huge threat and that day in, day out UK forces have to face the threat in Afghanistan that should be shared among our NATO partners, to ensure that they take more of the weight? Does he agree that it is time for them to stand up and be counted?

Des Browne: I agree that NATO needs to live up to its collective commitment. My ministerial colleagues and I regularly raise the subject when we speak to our partners. It will continue to be raised to ensure that increasingly they live up to those commitments, and there has been some movement on the part of some of our allies.

James Arbuthnot: NATO's own statement of requirements says that we need thousands more troops on the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Does the Secretary of State accept that we cannot be as effective as we would like to be without those extra troops? Does he agree that there is a risk that, over the next few months, we might find ourselves losing the ground that we have already taken and have to fight to get it back again later on?

Des Browne: The right hon. Gentleman properly raises an issue that the commander of ISAF raised in a recent interview. It is a concern that if we are unable to hold on to the ground that we have managed to secure, we will have to do exactly as the right hon. Gentleman says. However, like most hon. Members, he knows that our ability to secure and hold that ground is mostly a function of our ability to train and mentor Afghan security forces, both the army and the police, to do that. Unless we can make the Afghan security forces capable of holding on to that ground, we will find ourselves repeatedly in that situation, although I do not think we will do so because we are making progress in mentoring and training.
	Security issues in respect of the Afghan-Pakistan border feature significantly in our dialogue in NATO and with Pakistan. I recognise that additional forces are needed for that part of the country, but the security will have to be effective on both sides of the border, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows.

Hugh Bayley: At a meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly earlier this month, MPs from the Netherlands and Canada reported that their Parliaments would reconsider their countries' commitments to ISAF, and particularly to deploying to more dangerous regions of Afghanistan because of fears about unequal burden-sharing. The Secretary of State has already said that he shares that concern. What discussions has the North Atlantic Council had about burden-sharing, and how does he think policies could be changed so that it is more even?

Des Browne: It is a question not of changing policy but of NATO allies living up to the collective commitments to which they have signed up. I am well aware that the Netherlands and Canada must go through parliamentary processes that their Governments promised their Parliaments in order to consider extending their commitments beyond certain dates—I cannot remember the specific dates, but they are in 2008 or 2009. I am confident that they will get the support from other allies that will allow them to get through that political process. While I am at the Dispatch Box, I want to pay tribute to both those countries, which have made a significant contribution in difficult circumstances to securing the southern part of Afghanistan. That issue is constantly discussed both in the NAC and when Ministers meet, as NATO Ministers will at an informal session later this week.

Richard Younger-Ross: Security in Afghanistan will clearly improve if reconstruction work is progressed. It is believed that the MOD report on Operation Herrick was very critical of construction work. Both the Defence Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee have requested copies of that report to allow them to scrutinise in detail what is going on in Afghanistan. Will the Secretary of State make the report available to those Committees?

Des Browne: I will consider the request from the hon. Gentleman, and I would consider such a request from the Committee, if I were to receive one.

Adrian Bailey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that security in Afghanistan is a result of not only the number of troops, but their operational capability? Will he outline improvements for troops in terms of vehicles and other equipment to improve their operational capability?

Des Browne: Recently, significant improvements have been made in the protected vehicles that are available to our troops. We have not quite got the numbers of vehicles into the operational theatre that we plan to, but we are making significant progress. Last week, I went to see Brigadier Lorimer and representatives from 12th Mechanised Brigade, which has just returned from Afghanistan, and they spoke very highly of those vehicles and of the Mastiff vehicle in particular. Hon. Members will be aware that the Prime Minister's recent announcement about the procurement of Mastiff vehicles means that we expect to deliver more than 400 of them over the next two years. The majority of them will go to Afghanistan, but some will be used for pre-deployment training.

Ann Winterton: The MOD is to be congratulated on the deployment of the Warrior armoured fighting vehicle to Helmand province, which is proving to be a great success. Will the Secretary of State ensure as a matter of urgency that more of those vehicles are deployed throughout the theatre in support of the infantry?

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for recognising that improvement in force protection and the effectiveness of our troops. I discussed that very issue with Brigadier Lorimer on Friday, because it was on his recommendation that we first considered deploying Warriors. No request has been made for additional Warriors from commanders or the military, but if a request is made—Brigadier Lorimer agrees with the hon. Lady and suspects that a request will be made—I will consider it in the same way as I considered the first request.

David Kidney: My right hon. Friend has mentioned the work that is being done to train Afghanistan's own security forces. Are there enough trainers in the country at the present time, and, if not, what can be done to supply more?

Des Browne: There are not enough trainers in the country. For example, there are about 1,800 police trainers in Kosovo, which is about the size of Wales. The EU commitment to Afghanistan for police training on the civil side amounts to some 160 trainers, of whom 60 have been deployed. At a recent informal meeting of EU Ministers, I described that as a flea on the back of an elephant. If we are to match up to the challenge that we have generated for ourselves in the international community, we need to do much better on police trainers.

Peter Tapsell: Will the Secretary of State give careful thought to the thesis that the longer foreign troops unavailingly remain in southern Afghanistan, the greater the likelihood that Pakistan will turn into a fundamentalist, Islamic, hostile state, with the result that it will be a more immediately potent nuclear threat than even Iran?

Des Browne: To my surprise, the hon. Gentleman asks me to look forwards and not back, and I am grateful for his invitation to do so. The longer our troops in Afghanistan stay in their present configuration, doing what they need to do, the more testing it will become for them to sustain the support of the local people. I accept and understand that. All the military commanders and everybody who knows about insurgencies understand that the support of the local community is very important.
	There are serious concerns about developments in Pakistan. Only last week, there was evidence of the reach of insurgents and extremists in the country, and of their ability to overcome significant security. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not agree that our presence in southern Afghanistan is generating the dangers that emanate from Pakistan. The environment is complex, and we would all do well to make our best contribution to try to stabilise Pakistan.

Liam Fox: It is woefully disappointing that some of our allies are not pulling their full weight in Afghanistan. Moreover, there is the question of the unfair funding mechanism, through NATO, under which not only does Britain carry a disproportionate military burden, but our taxpayers carry a disproportionate financial burden. In the expectation that that unacceptable situation will continue, if the Government have not begun planning, or developed plans, for more British troops to be sent to Afghanistan, how do they think that the NATO gap will be filled—and by whom and in what time scale?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman and I largely agree on the issue of NATO living up to its commitments. As far as the NATO alliance is concerned, my priority is to get it to accept that it should live up to its commitments. I continually discuss with the Secretary-General, the Secretary of Defence and other allies present in the south how we can get other countries to increase their presence. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have had some success. Solving the issue through changing the funding mechanism would bring other challenges, which the hon. Gentleman will understand; if we move from the position of the costs lying where they fall, we might find ourselves having to encourage countries to increase their investment in their own capability as well. All such decisions have a cost.
	Our intention to get the necessary force levels in Afghanistan involves a combination of sustaining our level of commitment to the country and encouraging our allies to increase theirs; principally, however, it involves training Afghan forces to be able to take over responsibility in their own country. We are doing that at quite a pace.

Liam Fox: Hon. Members on both sides of the House will know of the widespread speculation that substantial numbers of Iranian-made explosively formed projectiles, or EFPs—the most lethal form of roadside bomb—have been supplied to the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is unbelievable that the Iranian Government would not know about those consignments. What is being done locally and internationally to stop such murderous attacks emanating from Iran on our armed forces?

Des Browne: I will not share all the relevant information with the House, but if the hon. Gentleman wants further briefing on the issue I shall be happy to give it to him on the appropriate basis. He knows exactly what we are doing to try to stop that dreadful, deadly traffic. He knows the degree of success that we have had; on some occasions, we have made that success public for obvious reasons.
	The hon. Gentleman is right about that equipment; indeed, there is also training of insurgents deployed into Afghanistan by the Iranians. I agree with him: I do not for a moment accept that all that is not known. If it is not known, I still think that the Iranian Government have to take responsibility because they have created a complexity of circumstances in which there is deniability.
	We must apply pressure on all levels, including diplomatic pressure—particularly in the region, where significant pressure on Iran is most effective. The Afghan Government themselves are giving that message to Iran. The irony is that although Iran does those things, it also does many positive things in Afghanistan. Like its relationship with Iraq, its relationship with Afghanistan is complex. The House can rest assured that the issue is uppermost in my mind and those of my ministerial colleagues.

Military Covenant

Greg Hands: If he will make a statement on the upholding of the military covenant.

Michael Spicer: If he will make a statement on the upholding of the military covenant.

Anne Milton: If he will make a statement on the upholding of the military covenant.

Bob Ainsworth: We are fully committed to meeting our responsibilities for serving personnel, veterans and their families. Over time, we have made improvements to service pay, accommodation, health and welfare provision, force protection and personal equipment. However, we recognise that more can be done.

Greg Hands: The Royal British Legion says:
	"we believe that certain aspects of the Military Covenant are not being delivered and that the Nation must now bring about change to ensure that our Service people and their families get the support they deserve."
	One of the things that it pinpoints is the armed forces compensation scheme, which it says will make
	"receiving compensation for death, injury or illness caused by Service significantly more difficult."
	Does the Minister agree?

Bob Ainsworth: I do not agree. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has had several meetings with the legion and has asked it to provide instances of where claiming compensation has been made difficult so that we can consider them. The burden of proof is at an acceptable level, and there is no evidence that there are difficulties. The level of compensation has been increased and improved by the introduction of the up-front payment to supplement the pension, which was not available at all until a year or so ago.

Michael Spicer: Why has the burden of proof for compensation been shifted from the Secretary of State to the wounded soldier?

Bob Ainsworth: The burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities. That is the same level of proof that is required under other schemes run by the Government, and it is not onerous, in my opinion. As I said, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has asked the legion to identify cases where people had difficulty in claiming compensation, and if they can show that they had difficulty we will address the matter. We are not going to walk away from this. We do not believe that the burden of proof presents a problem, but if evidence shows that it does, we will look at that evidence.

Anne Milton: I think that the Minister is in denial. There are 775 outstanding cases of injury compensation and 63,000 outstanding claims under the war pensions scheme. Does he honestly believe that those figures paint a picture of a Government who are committed to the military covenant?

Bob Ainsworth: Thousands of claims have to be processed each year. Some of them are relatively simple and straightforward and can be dealt with in a short period; others relate to people with enormously complex injuries, and that inevitably lead to delays in making an assessment. We have to do the maximum that we can to deal with these claims as quickly as we can, but they must be dealt with properly and thoroughly; I would have thought that that is what the hon. Lady wanted.

Linda Gilroy: One of the areas where there is significant scope for improvement in honouring the covenant is mental health services. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that that happens?

Bob Ainsworth: We have increased the funding that we offer to Combat Stress, which is an organisation that helps us in this respect. We have introduced assessments for all people who go into and out of theatre to try to ensure that we improve the assessment of the mental health of those who are faced with these circumstances. We are also introducing, through pilots in the first instance, across-the-board mental health facilities to cover all the regions of the United Kingdom to ensure that we pick up mental health issues as and when they arise and that we know exactly what problems face our ex-military personnel in the years to come.

Sandra Osborne: I congratulate the Royal British Legion on its campaign, because there is always more that can be done to support our veterans. I thank the Minister for the increased funding for Combat Stress, and especially for Hollybush house in my constituency. Will he join me in congratulating Hollybush house on the opening of its new wing last week? Along with the extra funding, that will greatly increase its capacity to support veterans who have mental health problems as a result of serving their country.

Bob Ainsworth: I thank my hon. Friend for the support she gives to Combat Stress, which I know is based in her constituency. I welcome her comments on the Legion's campaign. We, too, welcome it; we have no problem with the Legion using its power and influence to raise such issues throughout the country. It is sad, however, if people want to use its campaign for party political purposes. We ought to be working together to raise such issues, which are perfectly legitimate, in the country as a whole.

Kevan Jones: One of the most-cited elements of the covenant is the way in which the country deals with those wounded in action. Despite the unfair criticism of Selly Oak hospital by Opposition Front Benchers in last week's defence debate, I am sure that the Minister will agree with the Chief of the Defence Staff, who said in March 2007:
	"There is nowhere better in the country, nowhere more expert at polytrauma medicine than the hospital in Selly Oak, that's why our people are there."

Bob Ainsworth: That is exactly right. That is the opinion of the Chief of the General Staff and, overwhelmingly, of people who visit the facilities at Selly Oak. The comments made during the debate the other day were unfortunate, and they have not yet been withdrawn. Off the back of an individual case, the details of which were inaccurate, a slur was effectively cast on the people who work there.

Roger Gale: Does the Minister regard looking after the bereaved families of fallen servicemen and women as part of the military covenant? If he does, can he explain why it is still the case that no payment is made to bereaved families to enable them to be legally represented at inquests?

Bob Ainsworth: I accept that that is part of the military covenant. We must ensure that we give all appropriate support to the bereaved relatives of our service personnel, and we do. However, coroner's court appearances are not of such a nature that people should expect to be represented legally. The system is an inquisitorial one designed to get to the facts. It is not a system in which people automatically clash with the views of the Ministry of Defence at the hearings.

Brian Jenkins: My right hon. Friend recognises that the covenant is between the armed forces and the people of our countries. The Government are a part of that contract. Does he believe it is enhanced by politicians in this House and outside using the military as a political football by misquoting military leaders to score cheap party political points?

Bob Ainsworth: No, I do not. If people begin to use this debate in that way, they will detract from what we ought to be doing. All Members of this House, irrespective of party, should join this debate and help to facilitate what is needed: the maximum connection between our armed forces personnel, who are doing a tremendous job on behalf of this country, and the nation as a whole, many of whom do not understand and appreciate the full extent of the sacrifice and the service that is being given.

Mark Lancaster: A disproportionately large number of our homeless on the streets of London and other cities in the United Kingdom are former servicemen and women. I commend the work of the Sir Oswald Stoll Foundation and Veterans Aid—two marvellous charities that are helping with that. Is the Minister aware of the growing campaign for a national veterans centre in London to act as a one-stop shop, whether simply for veterans to make links with their old regiments or for the homeless to go and try to find somewhere to stay for the night? Is he prepared to meet representatives of the charities to push forward the campaign?

Bob Ainsworth: Lots of charities are working on the matter and doing a fantastic job, and we should do everything we can to encourage them in their work. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary meets them regularly. I am more than happy not only to meet the people concerned but to consider any ideas. We are prepared to consider any suggestions for assisting our former service personnel.

Nick Harvey: Does the Minister agree that one of the obligations that we owe our servicemen is confidence that when they serve on the front line, their families are being adequately housed and looked after at home? Does he recall that in 2001 the defence housing executive was aiming to get all family accommodation up to standard 1 by November 2005? That date has been and gone, and we now have a 10-year programme, which, according to the Secretary of State, would necessitate £50 million a year being spent on family accommodation. Does the Minister realise that in the 12 months to April this year, only £16 million was spent? At the rate that things are happening, rather than being talked about, it could take 50 years to bring service family accommodation up to scratch. Given that the Government have sold £2.2 billion of assets since 1999, would not it be an idea for a guaranteed proportion of those capital asset sales to be ring-fenced in future for reinvesting in the Ministry's estate of houses?

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is right that a big job continues to be necessary on the estate for service family accommodation and single living accommodation. However, he should not undervalue the amount of work being done, the amount of money being spent and the size of the continuing building programme. In the past year alone, £700 million was spent. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, there is a plan for £5 billion to be spent in the next 10 years. However, we will not put right decades of neglect overnight. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) points at Conservative Members, and during their reign practically no investment was made in service living accommodation. The matter is being addressed, but it will not be sorted out overnight.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: My right hon. Friend knows, because he visited Portsmouth naval base a couple of weeks ago, that we have made an excellent investment in single living accommodation in Portsmouth. Will he confirm that this Government did not sell off MOD housing stock at a knock-down price, or leave the MOD to pick up the maintenance costs?

Bob Ainsworth: Part of the problem is that we are living with the Annington Homes contract to this date. That adds complexity to dealing with family living accommodation. We are getting on with the rebuilding programme for single living accommodation and making improvements in service family accommodation, but the Annington contract has been a big part of the problem.

Andrew Murrison: In Iraq 7.4 Americans are wounded for each fatality, whereas the official UK figure is 1.6. What explanation of that gross disparity can the Minister offer other than the obvious one, which is a failure by the Ministry fully to reflect the casualty burden that our armed forces sustain?

Bob Ainsworth: Since I have been in this post, I have heard repeated allegations that somehow injured service personnel are not adequately reflected in the figures. I have heard all sorts of scurrilous things, such as that we are deliberately trying to hide the extent of our injured service personnel. I have seen no evidence of that. I continue to be prepared to examine anything that anyone has said. If anyone can provide evidence that we are under-reporting— [Interruption.] I heard the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) make scurrilous claims last time he was at the Dispatch Box, and I do not know whether he wants to do that again—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps we can use more temperate language.

Bob Ainsworth: I will try to do that, Mr. Speaker, at your direction.
	I say to the hon. Gentleman in all seriousness that if he or anyone else has evidence that there is a problem with the reporting mechanism, let us have it. We will look at that evidence and see whether we can put the problem right. Looking at what is needed for the purpose of treating our injured service personnel must be the priority. I see no evidence for the many claims that are made—indeed, continuing right up to this morning—and which have been quite adequately dealt with by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.

Afghanistan

Paul Flynn: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of UK operations in Helmand province.

Des Browne: The UK armed forces in Helmand continue to defeat the Taliban tactically, while supporting Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development programmes to improve governance and provide reconstruction. UK armed forces continue to provide mentoring and assist in the development of the Afghan security forces, as part of our long-term goal to ensure that the Afghans can take responsibility for their own security.

Paul Flynn: Of course there have been successes in Helmand, but there have been dreadful failures, too. The main one is the totally unexpected scale of the deaths of our valiant soldiers—18 died during the parliamentary recess—as well as the deaths of Afghan civilians. Those are uncounted, and are mostly women and children killed by American bombs. The result of that is that we are losing the crucial battle for hearts and minds, to the extent that many of the Afghans who welcomed us in 2001 and were glad to see the Taliban out of their country are now preparing to welcome the Taliban back, because they do not want to live in a country that is at war without end.

Des Browne: I assume that there was a question in there at some point, Mr. Speaker, so I will treat it as if it had a question mark at the end of it. My hon. Friend is consistent in his opposition to our deployment in Helmand province. We have debated the issue on numerous occasions. We will have to agree to disagree about it, although I think that we can agree that he ought to report accurately the success of our troops in Helmand province.
	As I have told the House already this afternoon, I spent a good part of Friday with a fair representation of 12th Mechanised Brigade, which has achieved a considerable amount over the period to which my hon. Friend referred. Those soldiers, their commanders and their commanding officer, Brigadier Lorimer, are in no doubt that they left a large part of Helmand province in a much better state, in terms of security and reconstruction, than they found it six months ago. I will not have people in the House categorising that as failure. It is not failure; it is significant success.

Robert Key: Given the number of deaths in Helmand province that result in the repatriation of bodies to Wiltshire—cases that it falls to the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner to pursue—may I say how grateful Wiltshire is that the budget has been addressed, and that a greater effort is being made by the Ministry of Justice? However, will the Secretary of State say whether the forthcoming coroners Bill will contain any proposals to address the extraordinary anomaly whereby servicemen who, unfortunately, die overseas must have an inquest in England but not in Scotland? Should there not be special provision for military deaths to be treated either with a special military coroner—perhaps at the Bulford centre—or in another way that gives more consideration to the families of the bereaved than we are able to give at present?

Des Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and his sustained interest in this issue. I also thank him for his recognition of the importance of the additional resources that both the MOD and the Ministry of Justice are providing to support the coroner in Wiltshire. I am confident that those resources, as well as the increased resources in Oxford, will help him to address the increased burden of work that he currently faces as a result of the repatriation of bodies.
	The hon. Gentleman addresses an issue that we have known about for some time, a resolution to which we have been discussing with the Scottish Executive. The fact of the matter is that there is no jurisdiction in Scotland for the investigation of deaths abroad. I noted recently that in answer to questions about fatal accident inquiries—the Scottish equivalent of coroner's inquests—the minority Government Justice Minister in Scotland said that he had no intention of changing the law in relation to them. I hope that he did not really mean that, and that his answer was perhaps just a line that an official had given him, which he had not thought about. We certainly continue to discuss the issue, because we are anxious that families based in Scotland will have the opportunity, in such terribly unfortunate circumstances, to have inquiries conducted near to their homes, as can happen in England and Wales.

Linda Riordan: Will the Minister outline any potential difficulties that the increase in internal problems in Pakistan might cause for troop deployment to Helmand province, given Britain's commitment to driving out the Taliban?

Des Browne: As I said earlier, I do not accept that there is necessarily a correlation between our deployment in Afghanistan and the troubles that are internal to Pakistan. I have no doubt that some of the same actors in the insurgency are involved on both sides of the border, and since I first took responsibility for our deployment in Afghanistan as Secretary of State for Defence, I have been in no doubt that there is cross-border traffic from Iran that causes some of the difficulties related to the insurgency. We need to see stable government, progressing towards a democratic Government, and Pakistan is capable of addressing the issue of extremism in that country. However, we should not underestimate the scale and nature of that challenge, and some of the things that we have seen on our television screens over the past week have shown just how difficult it is going to be.

Adam Price: Has the Secretary of State had a chance to review the comments made last week by the German Defence Minister, Mr. Franz Josef Jung, in which he criticised the British policy of holding talks with supporters of the Taliban in Musa Qala? When the Secretary of State meets Mr. Jung at the NATO conference, will he point out that if Germany had its troops on the front line in Helmand rather than in the relatively peaceful north, he would appreciate, just as British military commanders do, that this strategy of engagement is essential if we are to have any long-term hope of resolving the conflict?

Des Browne: I have very productive discussions with the German Defence Minister, who is committed to the support of NATO operations in Afghanistan. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is a supporter of the electoral method that generated the coalition that is governing Germany, and I must point out that the Defence Minister's need to operate within that coalition often makes it quite difficult to achieve all that he wants to achieve on the basis of his own politics. Also, with all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, and while I hear what he is saying, the approach that he suggests might not be as successful as he thinks. He is a great loss to the diplomatic corps if he thinks that it would benefit our troops in Afghanistan to approach the German Government in that fashion. Finally, Musa Qala has not turned out to be a success because it was unsustainable by the Afghan Government, but in my view, that kind of local agreement, which allows the Government to take care of their own areas, has to be the basis for moving forward. I am sure that there will be circumstances in the future in which we will make progress and then see it fall away; we will need to learn to cope with that.

Merchant Navy

Stephen Hepburn: If he will make a statement on the merchant navy's role in defence.

Bob Ainsworth: The main defence role of the merchant fleet is to support and supplement the naval fleet and to participate in reinforcement and resupply operations. To this end, certain British ships, including roll-on/roll-off vessels, product tankers and passenger vessels, are designated as strategic ships.

Stephen Hepburn: Is the Minister aware that in the past 30 years the number of British-registered merchant ships over 500 tonnes has been reduced from 1,600 to 300, and the number of British-registered merchant seamen has been reduced from 90,000 to 16,000? Given the importance of the merchant navy to defence, does he share my concern about that? Is he having discussions with any other arm of government on reversing those bad results?

Bob Ainsworth: I do not know exactly what my hon. Friend is saying. My figures are certainly different from his, so perhaps we should talk further about this matter afterwards. In my recollection, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) made some changes in the legal arrangements, which I know he is proud of. It is widely acknowledged within the merchant fleet that that did a lot to increase the amount of tonnage under British flags. My figures show an increase of 148 per cent. in flagged British ships since the year 2000. I also have a different set of figures for merchant seafarers, according to which there are 27,000, rather than the number suggested by my hon. Friend. Perhaps he and I should get together to ensure that we are talking about the same thing, by cross-referencing our information.

Reserve Forces

Simon Hughes: How many reservists there were in the armed forces in 1997; and how many there were on the most recent date for which figures are available.

Bob Ainsworth: As of 1 April 1997, there were a total of 322,100 regular and volunteer reservists; and as of 1 April 2007, there were approximately 206,200. Those numbers are made up of volunteer reservists, such as the Royal Naval Reserve and the Territorial Army, and regular reservists—ex-regular personnel who retain a reserve liability.

Simon Hughes: The residents of Bermondsey and Walworth are, like me, proud of the Royal Marines and the Army reservists who are based in our communities. Colleagues around the country will feel the same. Is it policy or accident that the number of reservists has gone down by a quarter during the period of the Labour Government, and the number in the Territorial Army by more than a third? We heard the other day that, because of defence cuts, the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers have been told that they cannot recruit any more reservists, so can the Minister confirm that no other regiment or unit is being held back from recruitment? Many people want to contribute to the country in this way, which has the potential hugely to enhance our capacity at home and abroad.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman's question throws up a couple of points. Back in the late 1990s, the strategic defence review did call for a decrease in the number of reservists, because the nature of defence and defence jobs was changing quite substantially. The 1997 figures were distorted by the fact that in the preceding years there had been big cuts in the regular Army, which led to a residual reserve capacity in 1997 that has obviously changed with time. I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to encourage more people to get involved with the reserves. There is currently under-recruitment there, which we need to continue to redress. We all need to work within our communities to ensure that we do the maximum we can to reap the benefit from the huge willingness of so many people to participate in the various branches of the reserves.

Gerald Howarth: Earlier this year, the Chief of the General Staff, Sir Richard Dannatt, in an internal Ministry of Defence note, expressed the following concern:
	"Our reserves to meet the unexpected (as well as for current operations) are now almost non-existent...We now have almost no capability to react to the unexpected".
	Is that not a shocking indictment of this Government's stewardship of our armed forces?

Bob Ainsworth: It is not the view of the chiefs of the defence staff that we are asking more than is possible of our armed forces. We, as Ministers, share the concern that our armed forces are extremely busy and that there is not a great residue of capacity left aside. We all know that we have two current operations going on. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is saying that all our armed forces are working extremely hard. No one is trying to hide that at all, but we are dealing with the situation, and our armed forces are dealing with it in an exemplary fashion.

Intergovernmental Conference (Lisbon)

Gordon Brown: With permission, Mr Speaker, I want to make a statement about the outcome of the informal European Council in Lisbon. The new agreed text of the amending treaty to support the enlargement of the European Union has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
	Alongside the treaty, it was agreed at Lisbon that the priority for the European Union must now be the global challenges that we face in relation to employment, prosperity, competitiveness, climate change and security. Today—in a document, "Global Europe", published this afternoon and available to the House now—the Government set out how we will advance those new priorities in the future.
	The mandate for the IGC made it clear that "the constitutional concept"— [Interruption].

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is making a statement, and it is not helpful for hon. Members to intervene.

Gordon Brown: The mandate made clear that
	"the constitutional concept, which consisted in repealing all existing Treaties and replacing them with a single text called 'Constitution', is abandoned".
	My intention throughout the summer and autumn of negotiations has also been to ensure that the detailed safeguards for the British national interest are written into the text of the treaty. I invite the House to examine in detail both the treaty and the protections that we have secured by our insistence on special treatment for the UK in a range of areas where our national interests demand it.
	First, I will ensure that Parliament has the fullest opportunity to examine the protocol on the charter of fundamental rights. The protocol, which is legally binding and enshrined in the treaty itself, provides an essential safeguard for the UK. It states that
	"the Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice, or any court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that the Charter reaffirms".
	The legally binding protocol ensures that nothing in the charter of fundamental rights challenges or undermines the rights already set out in UK law. The treaty also ensures that nothing in the charter extends the ability of any court, European or national, to strike down UK law. The point is reaffirmed in the protocol:
	"in particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in Title IV of the charter creates justiciable rights applicable to the United Kingdom except in so far as the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law."
	Secondly, we have secured in detail vital safeguards to our criminal law system and police and judicial processes, while making it possible to co-operate across borders when we choose to do so and when it is right in matters vital to our security. The safeguards are also enshrined in legally binding protocols to the treaty. They prescribe in detail our sovereign right to opt in on individual measures when we consider it in the British interest to do so, but also to remain outside if that is in our interests. In the past, for example, we have opted in on measures dealing with combating illegal immigration and the exchange of information when such measures are unquestionably in Britain's interests. The new treaty gives us freedom to protect the fundamentals of our common law system if we believe that it could be jeopardised, while at the same time allowing us to participate in areas where co-operation is in the national interest. The agreement set out in the details of the text is that it will be in our exclusive power to decide, on a measure-by-measure basis.
	As a result of our recent negotiations, the opt-in now covers all types of measures, including completely new measures and amendments to existing measures. When measures come forward under the Schengen agreement, we also have the right to opt out. We can choose to participate in any and every measure, but we cannot be forced to do so. If we choose not to, there is a fair, objective and robust system for consequential changes, but no financial or other penalties. We have secured a comprehensive, legally binding opt-in on all justice and home affairs measures, which will enable the UK to choose whether or not to participate in any justice or home affairs measure in the future.
	I turn to the common foreign and security policy. I welcome further scrutiny by this House of the agreements that we have secured because, again, I believe it is now absolutely clear that the basis of foreign and security policy will remain intergovernmental—a matter for Governments to decide. The intergovernmental basis is unchanged, and subject to distinct rules and procedures that protect that position. The declaration that we secured expressly states that nothing in the treaty affects the existing powers of member states to formulate and conduct their foreign policy, including maintaining their own national diplomatic services and membership of the United Nations Security Council. There is no sole right of initiative for the Commission, and there is no role for the European Parliament in decision taking. Voting by unanimity is the rule for all policy decisions. Apart from two specific and limited provisions in foreign policy—appeals against EU sanctions and, as now, any overlap, for example, with international development assistance—there is no jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice.
	The declaration agreed on Friday made it clear that the European Parliament would have no new role in the appointment to the new post of high representative, which will be made by the European Council. And there will be no change to the way EU foreign policy is decided—it will continue to be governed by unanimity. There is, in addition, a clear declaration that nothing in the treaty, including the Office of the High Representative and the External Action Service will
	"affect in any way the existing legal basis, responsibilities, and powers of each Member State in relation to the formulation and conduct of its foreign policy, its national diplomatic service, relations with third countries, and participation in international organisations, including a Member State's membership of the Security Council of the UN."
	On social security, we have secured an effective veto power on any proposals for important change. We can insist on taking any proposal to the European Council and, because it will be decided by unanimity, we have a veto where we—Britain—determine that a proposal would impact on important aspects of our social security system, including its scope, cost or financial structure. In justice and home affairs, the amending treaty gives us the right not to participate; in social security, it gives us the right to insist on unanimity.
	Many qualified majority voting measures, for example, rules for the euro or special state aids for Germany, do not affect the United Kingdom. The remaining areas of QMV agreed in June are decisions on emergency humanitarian aid to third countries—manifestly in Britain's interest—and energy market liberalisation, again in our interest. Others are technical or procedural and simply relate to the efficient functioning of the Union, for example, the internal rules for appointing the Committee of the Regions, judges and the Economic and Social Committee.
	While there is a two-and-a-half-year presidency of the Council, the President of the Council has been appointed as the servant of the leaders of the national Governments—and the purpose is to strengthen the Council of national Governments in relation to other EU institutions.
	The new treaty also expressly provides that national security is the sole responsibility of member states. The declaration to the treaty makes it clear that while the European Union, like the UN and the International Monetary Fund, can sign international agreements, this does not, and cannot, authorise the Union in any way to legislate or act beyond the powers conferred on it by member states in the treaties.
	As a result of our negotiation, we are agreed that the new text will make it clear that national Parliaments have the right, but are not obliged, to contribute to the work of the Union. Under the amending treaty, national Parliaments have a new right to force the EU to reconsider proposals if a third of Parliaments feel that the issue is better dealt with at member state level. And symbols of statehood that were the characteristic of the rejected constitutional treaty—European flags, anthems or mottos—have been abandoned in the treaty.
	As I have already made clear, the Government will only agree the amending treaty in December if, in the final text, all the UK protections that I have outlined are included in the detail we have negotiated. Parliament will have the opportunity to debate this amending treaty in detail and decide whether to ratify it. The Government will recommend that there is sufficient time for debate on the Floor of the House so that the Bill is examined in the fullest of detail and all points of view can be heard— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Penning, I must ask you to behave— [ Interruption. ] Order. Let me deal with it. It is not the first time that the Opposition have called on Ministers to come and make statements to the House. The Prime Minister is doing that. If hon. Members do not co-operate with me, I have powers to deal with the matter. I ask the House to listen to what the Prime Minister has to say. Do not shout out questions. If there are questions, I will recognise Members and let them put their questions to the Prime Minister. That is the way that we will do it.

Gordon Brown: In addition, we propose to build further safeguards into the legislation. To ensure that no Government can agree without Parliament's approval to any change in European rules that could, in any way, alter the constitutional balance of power between Britain and the European Union, we will make a provision in the Bill that any proposal to activate the mechanisms in the treaty that provide for further moves to QMV, but which require unanimity of member states, will have to be subject to a prior vote by this House.
	The amending treaty will not be fully implemented until 2014. Indeed, one section does not have full effect until 2017. I can confirm that, not just for this Parliament but also for the next, it is the position of the Government to oppose any further institutional change in the relationship between the EU and its member states. In our view, there is also a growing consensus across Europe that there should be no more institutional change for many years.
	The December European Council will also consider a declaration proposed by Britain that Europe moves to a new agenda. The new priorities are a focus on jobs, competitiveness, prosperity, climate change and security, so that Europe can play a far stronger part in the competitive economy of the world and be a leader and success story in the new global order. So because it is right that Europe now focuses not on more institutional change, but on the reforms that are needed to meet the challenges of the global era, we are publishing today our agenda for the new priorities that we as a European Union must adopt—a renewed focus on completing the single market, in which the priority is the liberalisation of the energy and telecommunications sectors; a commitment to free trade and openness, with the priority of ensuring a successful outcome to the world trade talks and promoting better EU-US trade links; tackling climate change and energy security; combating terrorism and organised crime; reducing global poverty; and reforming the European Union budget.
	It is by putting in place those changes that we can create a truly outward-looking, globally focused European Union that helps deliver prosperity, opportunity and security for all, with an agenda that is good for Britain and good for Europe, and that allows us to continue to benefit from our membership of the European Union and, by working together, to have a greater influence in the world.
	The protections we have negotiated defend the British national interest. We are putting in place new procedures to lock in our protection of these interests. We will oppose any further proposals for institutional change in the European Union this Parliament and the next. We will lead the debate in Europe to move to a new agenda of new priorities that focus on the economic and social needs of our citizens. I commend this statement to the House.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister says that he wants Europe to focus on competitiveness and climate change and is opposed to further institutional change. I have to say that people will ask why he did not say that boldly at the start of the intergovernmental conference, rather than lamely at the end of it.
	There is one fundamental question arising from today's statement. When a party makes a promise in a manifesto, can it be trusted to keep it? The Prime Minister has described the Labour manifesto as an issue of trust. That manifesto promised a referendum on the EU constitution. If this Prime Minister goes back on that promise, how can he expect his promises to be believed in future? In his statement, he did not even mention that R word once. As his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who helped to write the constitution, said:
	"If Labour can't trust the people, why should the people trust Labour?"
	First of all, let us look at the content of the treaty. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the treaty gets rid of the veto in 60 areas, including in energy, transport and self-employment law? The Prime Minister has given up on the veto but he says that is okay because he has got rid of the motto. Well, I have a motto for him: "Let the people decide".
	Will the Prime Minister confirm that this treaty means an EU President and Foreign Minister and an EU diplomatic service in all but name? Will he confirm that it includes a new ratchet clause that allows even more vetoes to be scrapped without the need for a new intergovernmental conference? The Prime Minister says that there will be no more institutional change for 10 years but he has just agreed a treaty that allows institutional changes to take place every year.
	The Prime Minister deploys two main arguments against holding a referendum: first, he says, the treaty is not the same as the constitution and, secondly, he says that Britain is a special case because of our opt-outs and our red lines. Let me take the two arguments in turn: first, the claim that the new treaty is substantially different from the constitution. The Irish Prime Minister says that it is 90 per cent. the same. The Spanish Foreign Minister says that it is 98 per cent. the same. The German Chancellor says:
	"The substance of the constitution is preserved...That is a fact."
	Why does the Prime Minister think all of them are wrong and he is right?
	What is more, is not it the case that even his colleagues do not believe him? His new trade Minister, Lord Jones of Birmingham, days before his appointment said:
	"This is a con to call it a treaty—it's not. It's exactly the same—it's a constitution."
	The Prime Minister's colleagues on the Labour-dominated European Scrutiny Committee say that the EU treaty is "substantially equivalent" to the constitution, even for Britain. They say that pretending otherwise, as the Prime Minister keeps doing, is "likely to be misleading".
	Next, the Prime Minister says that even if it is a constitution for other countries it is not for Britain because of our opt-outs and our red lines. Will he confirm that the red lines do not include the EU President, the single legal personality, the vetoes or the ratchet clause? That is why his hon. Friend who helped to draft the constitution described the red lines as "red herrings".
	Even the areas covered by the red lines are falling apart; take the red line on tax. The Government told the BBC that it was a bit of a con and "purely presentational" because tax was never going to be part of the treaty anyway. Is not it the case that the red line on foreign policy is only in a declaration? It is not legally binding and legal advice to the European Scrutiny Committee says that it may turn out to be "meaningless".
	With the red line on the charter of fundamental rights, the former Prime Minister promised us an opt-out. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Minister for Europe had to write to the Scrutiny Committee to explain that it was not an opt-out after all, but just a clarification? That actually matters. The Prison Officers Association has already announced that it will take the Government to court so that it can have the right to strike that is set out in the charter of fundamental rights.
	The red line on criminal justice has also been torn apart by the European Scrutiny Committee. The Chairman of the Committee said:
	"We believe that the red lines will not be sustainable...we believe these will be challenged...and eventually the UK will be in a position where it will have all of the treaty...we think"—
	the red lines—
	"will basically leak like a sieve."
	So much for the red lines, but even if they were totally robust and watertight it would not affect the case for a referendum, because they are the same red lines as the Prime Minister's predecessor set out for the constitution. Then, as now, the Government claimed that the charter would not affect UK law. Then, as now, the Government claimed that we were protected from measures on foreign policy, tax and criminal law and then, as now, they claimed that there was no great constitutional change at stake. So why promise a referendum then, but not now? Is not the answer perfectly clear?
	The last Prime Minister, standing at the Dispatch Box, said,
	"let the battle be joined";—[ Official Report, 20 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 157.]
	whereas this Prime Minister says, let battle be avoided wherever possible, especially if people are to have their say. That is why he is not having a referendum. He does not think he would win it. Why does he continue to treat people like fools by pretending otherwise? Why does he continue to put forward arguments that do not even convince his own colleagues?
	This is the Prime Minister who stood outside Downing street four months ago promising to restore trust in politics, but now he is betraying people's trust. He promised to listen, but he refuses to give people the chance to speak. He promised to honour his manifesto, but he is breaking one of the most important manifesto commitments of all. He says that this issue will be settled by Parliament, so perhaps he could start his response by answering a simple question: when Parliament votes on whether to hold a referendum, will he allow his side a free vote? He has absolutely no democratic mandate to sign this treaty without a referendum. If he breaks his trust with the British people, they will rightly say, "How can we ever trust him on anything else again?"

Gordon Brown: I will answer every point in detail, but I notice that the right hon. Gentleman mentions nothing about the long-term agenda for Europe—not one thing. Is it not remarkable that, after six years of debate about institutions, not one Government in the rest of Europe—not one of the 27—support his opposition to the amending treaty? Is it not remarkable that only one Government—Ireland—who are constitutionally obliged to do so, think that the issues justify a referendum now? Is it not also remarkable that, in his own shadow Cabinet, those members who were there in 1992 all voted against a referendum on a more far-reaching treaty in Maastricht?
	As for the individual questions that the right hon. Gentleman put to me, the first was on the passerelles—as for those that he raised, I have to tell him that they were legislated for in the Single European Act by Lady Thatcher. The implementation of passerelles requires unanimity, and sometimes I think that he does not listen to me, because I said directly that, in the House of Commons, Members of Parliament would have a vote on whether to implement any of the passerelles.
	I think that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that foreign policy remains an intergovernmental matter and the decisions remain to be made by unanimity. Those are the two building blocks of the common foreign and security policy: the decisions are intergovernmental and taken by unanimity. That means that Britain has the right to decide. The right hon. Gentleman raised that issue in terms of justice and home affairs, but the fact is that we have an opt-in on all the important issues that have to be decided—an opt-in that has been negotiated by us, including in relation to Schengen measures, where we can opt out if we choose to do so. The fact of the matter is that, on this issue too, Britain will decide.
	On social security, because we have a veto on any further new decision, it is Britain that will decide. As for the charter of rights, I think that the right hon. Gentleman should read the protocol, which means that there are no rights in British law as a result of that charter. It is exactly for that reason that the CBI has issued a statement saying that it supports our interpretation of it.
	I am afraid to say that, because the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to look at the long-term agenda for Europe, people will rightly draw the one conclusion that is drawn from the behaviour of Conservative Members: not only are they against the amending treaty, but they wish to renegotiate the membership of the European Union; they wish to withdraw from employment and social legislation; and not only that, they have a decision to make on whether, when the treaty is ratified, they will support a referendum even after the ratification, which means that they have to renegotiate with all the other 26 members on our membership of the European Union. For a country where 62 per cent. of our trade lies with Europe, I have to say that the years of economic uncertainty and instability that would result from such renegotiation would, in my view, be unacceptable to British business and unacceptable to the British people.
	The House should also know, in conclusion, what friends the Conservative party has in Europe. The Conservatives said that they would form the Movement for European Reform. They said that other countries would join, and they announced at a press conference that the Czech party had joined and then that the Bulgarian party had joined. Then, only a few days ago, the European People's party announced that the Bulgarians had already withdrawn from the Movement for European Reform. Then, the right hon. Gentleman has got his last remaining friends, whom he calls his closest allies in Europe—the Czech Civic Democrats—but his only allies in Europe support the amending treaty.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, we cannot have shouting.

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman's only remaining friends in Europe, the Czech Civic Democrats, support the amending treaty and are against a referendum, and the Czech Prime Minister has said,
	"We cannot afford any further failure on the path to this common goal"
	in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman has no friends in Europe, and he has no support from any Government; he will have to change his policy. We will defend the national interest.

Hon. Members: More, more!

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Vincent Cable.

Vincent Cable: I welcome the statement. We believe that the treaty is necessary. It is in the British national interest that the European Union should work efficiently and effectively, but there remains the issue of legitimacy. We believe that there should be a referendum. The public should decide whether Britain should remain a committed member of the European Union. A great deal has changed since the Harold Wilson referendum in 1975. There has been a pooling of sovereignty through Mrs. Thatcher's Single European Act, John Major's Maastricht treaty, Tony Blair's Amsterdam and Nice treaties, and now this treaty. The time has come for consultation with the British public on the cumulative effect of those treaties, because there is anxiety about national sovereignty, and that has to be addressed through public debate.
	We cannot continue with the approach perfected by the Conservative party, which, when in office, supported European integration without referendums, but which, when in opposition, supports the worst features of anti-European populism.
	May I take the Prime Minister back to his early political career in Scotland? He will remember that a movement was launched by great figures such as the late John Smith and Donald Dewar, and by lesser figures such as the Prime Minister and me, to persuade the then sceptical Labour movement of the merits of the European Union. We won that argument, and we ask him to return to it, because very few people under the age of 50, including the Foreign Secretary, have been able to engage in the debate. If the Prime Minister does return to that argument, it will help him to escape from the image that he created of someone who is afraid of the ballot box. He may also persuade the leader of the Conservative party to say whether he is in favour of Britain being in or out of the European Union, or both at the same time.
	I now turn to the specifics of the treaty. The red lines were of course understandable, but on the vision, as the Prime Minister describes it, what is he doing to promote a more decentralised and devolved Europe, rather than the European superstate that is the figment of Europhobes' imagination? Why did he not do more to promote the concept of subsidiarity, which is so weak in the treaty? Does he not realise that it is highly corrosive to public confidence when the European Commission promotes issues such as rules on working time, which should be a matter of national competence, instead of using its energy to deal with cross-border issues such as global warming and the aviation industry's contribution to it?
	We support the Prime Minister's vision of an open, outward-looking Europe, but why has he not rebuked his friend and former colleague, Peter Mandelson, who, instead of getting down to his job of delivering liberalised world trade negotiations, is launching protectionist attacks on China? What is the Prime Minister doing to address the urgent deteriorating political situation in Turkey, partly created by rebuffs from the European Union? Will he at last give us a timeline for fundamental reforms of the wasteful, economically illiterate common agricultural policy?
	My final question to the Prime Minister is this: will he come out of his bunker and join the Liberal Democrats in supporting a referendum on British membership of the European Union, and join us in making the European case, and campaigning for a yes vote?

Gordon Brown: I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about the long-term agenda for the European Union, and I hope he will read the document that we have published today, in which we set out the case for an open Europe that looks out to the world, as well as the case for a world trade agreement. We support the hon. Gentleman in urging all parties to make that agreement soon. We support EU outreach to Turkey, and we hope that the negotiations with Turkey will start soon. In the document, we also support wide-scale reform of the EU budget, including reform of the common agricultural policy. The hon. Gentleman will remember that there was an agreement that those reform discussions should start next year, and they will do so.
	I agree, too, that it is time to have a debate about the future of Europe in the context of Britain being positive about its membership of the EU. It is unfortunate that the debate has not concentrated on the things that European countries can do together, including environmental action, in which we can work with our partners to deal with climate change as well as action to open up the single market. Sometimes, we forget that 62 per cent. of our exports go to the European Union; 40 per cent. of all financial services activity in Europe comes through London; and 80 per cent. of the burgeoning carbon market for the whole of Europe is based in the City of London. We are in a privileged position because, through the United Kingdom's financial services in particular, we can benefit from the extension of the single market and make it the means by which we can create jobs for the future.
	I am pleased that the two candidates for the leadership of the Liberal party—at least the two candidates who have announced that they are standing for the leadership—have said that they do not regard this as a constitutional treaty. They regard it as an amending treaty that does not require a referendum, so they share the view of every single Government in Europe, apart from that of Ireland, where there is a constitutional obligation to hold a referendum. I hope that we can proceed on the basis that there will be a full debate in the Chamber in the House of Commons on all the details of the legislation; that every Member of Parliament who has views can contribute to that debate; and that we can look in detail at the provisions that have been agreed as part of the amending treaty. I think that people will come to the conclusion that we have defended the British national interest, and built in the necessary protections for the future.

Mike Gapes: I welcome the agreement by 27 sovereign countries. The Prime Minister referred to the appointment of a high representative for foreign and security policy. Will he confirm that that individual will not be the Foreign Minister, that the representatives of the European external action service will not form a foreign ministry, and that we will not have European Union embassies but EU missions throughout the world?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is the distinguished Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I stress that foreign policy will remain intergovernmental. We have always said that decisions will be made unanimously and that the treaty does not, as people have claimed, remove our seat at the United Nations Security Council. We have always said that the organisation and function of any external action service must be agreed unanimously, too. I can therefore reassure my hon. Friend on each point that he made.

Angela Browning: Will the Prime Minister explain how the home affairs and justice opt-ins that he negotiated will work at the end of five years?

Gordon Brown: There are three separate ways in which the justice and home affairs opt-ins work. First, we have the right to opt in to any new measures. Secondly, we have the right, if we so choose, to opt out of existing measures that we have accepted if they are amended. The third option, to which I think the hon. Lady was referring, applies to Schengen measures. After a period of five years, they will stop being intergovernmental measures and become part of the treaty. At that stage, we will have the right to opt out, if we choose to do so.

Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the year before last, he and I were both elected on a manifesto pledge to campaign wholeheartedly for a yes vote on the new constitutional treaty, that that pledge was scuppered, as was the treaty itself, by the no votes in France and Holland, and that that being so, those who write well remunerated articles reminding the Labour party of manifesto pledges have either not read the manifesto or prefer money to truth?

Gordon Brown: The constitutional concept, as was stated in the declaration, has been abandoned. If anybody has any doubt about the special treatment that has been accorded to Britain as a result of our negotiations, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who is hardly a supporter of what we have been trying to advocate, said only a day ago, on 20 October:
	"As to the balance sheet of the changes, it mainly favours Great Britain, which will enjoy a special status: It is 'placed in an exceptional situation' with respect to monetary union; it does not apply the Schengen agreement; it is not bound by the constraints of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.... and it retains its discretion to interpret certain judicial matters."
	That is how we have defended the British national interest, and that is why the amended treaty is quite different from the original constitutional treaty. We have secured the protections for the British national interest.

Iain Duncan Smith: Does the Prime Minister recognise that the history of the European Union is hugely shaped by the Courts, and that they have always, through judicial activism, changed elements in the treaty in the direction of ever closer union? As they were the ones to find in favour of European law having primacy—not this House or any other Parliament—does he not realise that the Courts will progressively find in the direction of a single legal personality, and that his opt-outs will no longer exist?

Gordon Brown: I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. The protocols that we have negotiated are part of the treaty and they are legally binding, no matter what he wishes to believe. If he is in any doubt about what has happened, the President of the European Parliament only a few days ago, writing in  The Daily Telegraph—as a Christian Democrat, he should support the Conservative party but does not do so on this matter—stated:
	"The special deal . . . in this area even goes as far as allowing withdrawal from previous agreements where the UK had opted-in."
	He went on to say that
	"we have reverted to a classic treaty between 27 sovereign states under international law similar to all previous EU treaties".
	If the Conservative party did not support a referendum on Maastricht, why should it support a referendum on the constitutional treaty?

Stuart Bell: May I remind the Prime Minister, in response to the question from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), that the destiny of Europe was set when we signed the Single European Act in 1986 under a Thatcher Government? The House should welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that 62 per cent. of our exports now go to Europe, whereas it was 57 per cent. 10 years ago. The House should welcome his emphasis on jobs, competitiveness, prosperity, climate change, security, the single market, free trade and openness. I assure him that these will be the subjects of debate when we come to discuss the reform treaty.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will very much be part of the debate on the Floor of the House when we discuss all the provisions. I welcome the chance to debate the treaty and to show that the protocols and the opt-ins that we have succeeded in achieving defend the British national interest. My hon. Friend is right. At some point, even the Conservative party will have to come to terms with the fact that we benefit from our membership of the European Union. It is not just 62 per cent. of our trade and 40 per cent. of all financial services activity of the EU in London—50 per cent. of investment banking is in London— [Interruption.] The Conservatives do not seem to be concerned that millions of jobs are dependent on our membership of the European Union. It is estimated that our trade with the European Union makes possible 3 million jobs, and if the Conservatives want to create a period of economic instability, I know where business and the British people will be. They will want economic stability.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Does the Prime Minister recall the statement that he made in this House in July on constitutional reform, in which he promised to devolve more power directly to the people? He asserted:
	"The right of all the British people to have their voice heard is fundamental to our democracy".—[ Official Report, 3 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 818.]
	Does he realise the damage that he is doing to people's faith in democracy, when he breaks his own manifesto promise to hold a referendum on the treaty, which in substance and legal effect is almost identical to the previous one, and when he ignores and contradicts the words that he uttered on direct democracy only three months ago in this House?

Gordon Brown: If we were voting on a decision to join the euro, there would be a referendum; and if we were discussing the old constitutional treaty, there would be a referendum. We have secured the defence of the national interest in such a way that no fundamental change is taking place in the relationship between the European Union and Britain, which is shown in the protocols as well as in the opt-ins that we have achieved. The right hon. Gentleman should think again before his next intervention, because he was one of the Conservative Whips when the Conservatives opposed a referendum on the Maastricht treaty.

Michael Connarty: First, I commend the Prime Minister for correctly quoting the European Scrutiny Committee report when he uses it. We said:
	"We consider that, for those countries which have not requested derogations or opt outs from the full range of agreements in the Treaty...the new Treaty produces an effect which is substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty."
	Of course, we do have derogations and opt-outs.
	Secondly, turning to the Schengen building agreements and framework decisions, there are 70 to 80 areas in which we have agreed that there is no role for the European Court of Justice, but if we opt in to these and to clauses 62 to 69 of the reform treaty, those areas will be controlled by the European Court of Justice and the Commission. Will the Prime Minister assure us that whatever Bill he introduces in this House will include detailed procedures so that this House knows its role in deciding whether the Government should be advised to opt in or not to opt in to those things, or whether to accept the opt-out in certain areas, as we go along through the five years and debate whether there will be transposition of all those 70 to 80 areas?

Gordon Brown: I assure the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee that there will be a full opportunity to debate those issues on the Floor of the House. In particular, he will find that we have an opt-in on all those matters, and it will be for us, the British people, to decide whether we opt in on those issues.
	As far as my hon. Friend's more general point is concerned, I am pleased that the Committee takes the view that the treaty as it affects Britain is quite different from the treaty as it affects other countries. Britain will decide on justice and home affairs, because we have the opt-in; Britain has the protocol on the charter of rights; Britain has an intergovernmental decision on foreign policy; national security has been exempted from the treaty; and we have a veto on social security. In all the areas where there were question marks beforehand, we have defended the British national interest. As my hon. Friend has rightly said, the treaty is different in its consequences for Britain and for other countries.

Charles Kennedy: Does the Prime Minister recognise that there is always an ongoing responsibility on this or any other British Government who are playing their role properly in Europe to do more to explain and inform people about developments within the European Union and Britain's role within those developments? Will he acknowledge—we have all experienced this, whatever our views on the European issue—that when it comes to "Question Time", "Any Questions?" or Radio Five Live phone-ins, the most common complaint is that people do not feel they get sufficient unbiased information on which to make a judgment about Europe? That will not change to any great extent given the arcane and at times impenetrable debates that will take place in this House on the minutiae of the draft treaty. Does he have any specific initiatives in mind, running concurrently with the passage of this treaty, to get more information out to the British public—particularly, perhaps, through the education system?

Gordon Brown: I note that the right hon. Gentleman has become the president of the European Movement. It is, of course, part of the work of the European Movement to stimulate debate in the country about the future of the European Union. There will be time to debate all the detailed parts of the amending treaty in the House of Commons, which will also provide an opportunity to inform the public about the consequences and implications of the amending treaty. I believe that the public will come to the view that we have taken the right decisions to protect the national interest.

Frank Field: If the Scottish First Minister grants Scottish voters a say on the treaty, will the Prime Minister protect English voters and grant them a similar privilege?

Gordon Brown: The decision for a referendum on European Union matters is a decision for this Parliament.

Peter Bottomley: The Prime Minister has not answered the question whether there will be a free vote for his side on a referendum. We now know that the Liberals will opt out. Will he say whether, given the question marks described by some of his colleagues and the doubts about the language, which he himself referred to in December, he will let the British people—rather than just him and his Government—decide whether the treaty should be signed?

Gordon Brown: I have already made it absolutely clear that if we secure all the detailed amendments that we have sought and that are in the text at the moment, we are prepared to sign the treaty and recommend to the House that the treaty be ratified. As far as the hon. Gentleman's position is concerned, I see that he has signed the early-day motion calling for a referendum even after ratification.
	The Conservative party will have to make a decision, because if it wants a referendum after ratification, it is effectively asking the European Union to reopen the conditions of membership of the European Union. I believe that the Conservative party will find it very difficult to get support—even from the Czech Civic Democrats—for that position. It will find that 26 out of 27 members of the European Union do not want to go along with its proposals for changes. The Conservative party will have to make a very difficult decision. I believe it will have to decide what is in the interests of the British people.

Dawn Butler: Does the Prime Minister agree with the trade unions and me that we must not under any circumstances put jobs in this country at risk? Some 62 per cent. of our exports go to the European Union. If we put exports at risk, we are putting jobs in this country at risk.

Gordon Brown: There is not a constituency in this country that does not depend on trade with the European Union. That trade has grown substantially since we joined the European Union in the 1970s and it will continue to grow over the next few years. What would put it at risk is a prolonged period of instability with people not knowing whether we proposed to continue with our membership of the European Union or we were trying to renegotiate that membership. I believe that there is no support in the country for putting that—and thus jobs and the prosperity of the British people—at risk.

John Maples: There is considerable concern that protocol 7 is not sufficient to prevent the European Court of Justice from using the charter of fundamental rights in future to create new, individual legal rights in the United Kingdom. Presumably, the Government have taken legal advice on that. I should be grateful if the Prime Minister told me whether that legal advice is absolutely 100 per cent. unequivocal and whether he will publish it.

Gordon Brown: The charter records but does not create new rights and the protocol has the full force of law. That is both the legal advice that we have had and, I suspect, the legal advice that anybody else who has looked at the issue has had. I believe that the Confederation of British Industry has also looked at it very closely, and it has come to the view that we have defended the British national interest.

David Winnick: As someone who, on many occasions, has not been over-enthusiastic about various aspects of the European Union, I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that, bearing in mind what he has said about the opt-outs, many of the objections today really amount to little more than xenophobia. Some of the talk very recently about Munich, betrayal and so on is utter rubbish from start to finish.

Gordon Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend. The problem is that some Conservative Members do not just want to stop the amending treaty but want to renegotiate the whole membership of the European Union. That is why they start with employment and social legislation; they then say that even if the treaty is ratified they will still want a referendum. That will open up the question whether we are serious about our membership of the European Union. I hope that at some point the Conservative party will come to its senses and realise that we are in Europe and that we are in Europe to stay.

Malcolm Rifkind: The Prime Minister has conspicuously avoided responding to the request from the Leader of the Opposition to reconcile his remarks on the protocol with the letter from the Minister for Europe to the European Scrutiny Committee on 31 July. On that occasion, the Minister said that the protocol
	"is not an 'opt-out' from the Charter. Rather, the Protocol clarifies the effect the Charter will have in the UK."
	If all other member states of the European Union are going to be bound by the charter of fundamental rights and if the Government themselves believe that we do not have an opt-out, will the Prime Minister use this opportunity to clarify to the House what, in the words of the Minister for Europe,
	"effect the Charter will have in the UK"?

Gordon Brown: I can clarify to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the protocol is legally binding in the UK. I would have thought that he, as a lawyer, could see that it is part of the treaty and is therefore legally binding. That is the position of the Government. I would have thought more of his comments if he had voted for a referendum in 1992, which he did not do.

Chris Bryant: The Prime Minister referred to the enforced liberalisation of the energy market in Europe. That is very important because we have been trying to persuade the French to do this for a long time so that British companies may own French energy companies just as French energy companies own British ones. Is this not even more important as we face up to Russia and try to ensure our energy security into the future?
	Will the Prime Minister welcome article 84 of the treaty, which is about intellectual property rights? We have been campaigning to try to ensure that, as the Gowers review said was necessary for the British economy, we have strong intellectual property rights across the whole of Europe, which will now come in thanks only to this treaty.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Both in intellectual property and in energy, we benefit from the action taken within the European Union. As far as energy liberalisation is concerned, I detected that one or two Conservative Members supported me when I said that qualified majority voting on energy liberalisation is in British interests. Let me read the letter from the chairman of Centrica and the chairman of National Grid to the  Financial Times:
	"The draft Reform Treaty can...help to promote energy liberalisation by moving this to majority voting...this will be a way of circumventing cases of protectionism."
	That is in the interests of the British economy and of British energy companies trying to sell in Europe, and in the interests of growth in the European economy as a whole.

William Cash: Does the Prime Minister accept that by refusing to hold a referendum he is putting not only himself on trial but Parliament itself? Does he not appreciate that 27 million people have been denied the opportunity of a referendum since 1975? Given the circumstances of deceit and the manner in which this treaty has been negotiated, as the European Scrutiny Committee has indicated, it is absolutely essential that we have a referendum. No wonder only 59 per cent. of people bother to vote at all. Does he not understand the responsibility upon him?

Gordon Brown: We have had many debates over the years, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will concede this: that if there had been a decision to recommend joining the euro, I was the first to argue that there should be a referendum— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has asked a question and now he will not hear the answer. He must be quiet and hear the answer. I know that it is very difficult for him, but he should try to hear it.

Gordon Brown: If we were making a decision on the old constitutional treaty, we would have had a referendum. The hon. Gentleman cited the European Scrutiny Committee. He must therefore accept that its Chairman has said, as I believe, that the treaty as negotiated for Britain has the protocols—the opt-outs and opt-ins, in certain respects—that make it a quite different treaty for Britain than it is for other countries in Europe. The hon. Gentleman should also accept that his real reason for having a referendum is, as he has said on a number of occasions, "We must withdraw from the European Union." That is his true position.

Louise Ellman: Will the Prime Minister indicate what positive measures the treaty could deliver in addressing regional disparities in the United Kingdom?

Gordon Brown: The regional work of the European Union, including that of the European Economic and Social Committee, does a tremendous amount to try to deal with the question of inequalities. For example, over the last Parliament we succeeded in persuading the European Union that there should be regional venture capital funds and that we should be able to have regional investment that did not come up against state aid legislation so that the regions of our country could receive benefits from membership of the European Union. Of course, regional policy will move towards eastern Europe over future years, but benefits will still come to all the regions of the United Kingdom from membership of the European Union. We must not forget that 3 million jobs depend on the trade relationships that we have with Europe, and we should do nothing to put those at risk.

Nicholas Winterton: May I put a direct question to the Prime Minister? Does he fervently believe in honesty, trust and honour? I want a direct answer to that. Would he indicate why, if this treaty-constitution and Europe are so good for this country, he is not prepared to put it to the people of this country in a referendum and ask them what they think rather than telling them what he thinks?

Gordon Brown: I believe that trust is built in this country by defending and advancing the British national interest, which is what I shall continue to do. We had better be clear about the agenda of the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect. He is a member of Better Off Out and it is pretty clear what he wants to achieve.

David Borrow: When members of the European Scrutiny Committee, including me, looked at these issues, we raised legitimate concerns about the firmness of some of the red lines. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the appropriate place for those to be debated and discussed is in this Chamber, by Members of Parliament elected to scrutinise such treaties? Will he confirm that there will be sufficient time for every Member of this House to participate in those discussions?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is a member of the Scrutiny Committee and I welcome the chance for us to debate in detail, on the Floor of the House of Commons, the protections that we have secured for the British national interest. It is interesting that most of the questions from the Conservatives today are not about the detail of the amending treaty at all. I welcome the debate that we will have in future months on this matter, and we will show, as we show the Committee with the questions it has asked of us, that we have secured the proper protections for Britain.

Angus Robertson: The Prime Minister knows that the common fisheries policy has been a disaster in Scotland. It has also been a serious impediment to Norway or Iceland ever joining the EU. Having chosen to disregard that red line issue for the Scottish Government, will the Prime Minister tell the House what advantages he foresees by enshrining the common fisheries policy as an exclusive treaty competence?

Gordon Brown: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the treaty does not change the competence on fisheries.

Kate Hoey: The Prime Minister referred to the Maastricht treaty a number of times. Is not the difference between the Maastricht treaty and the Lisbon treaty that the Government at the time of the former did not promise a referendum, whereas this Government—my Government—did?

Gordon Brown: I say to my hon. Friend, for whom I have considerable respect, that if this were the old constitutional treaty, we would be having a referendum. The fact that we have secured major protections for the British national interest, while the constitutional concept has been abandoned, leads us to the conclusion that the best way of debating the matter is in detail on the Floor of this House, so that we can show people that we have protected the national interest.

Nigel Waterson: If the Prime Minister rejects the judgment of some leading European statesmen that this treaty represents 90 to 98 per cent. of the original constitution, what figure would he put on it?

Gordon Brown: I have just quoted Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who said that:
	"As to the balance sheet of the changes, it mainly favours Great Britain" .
	I could quote the President of the Commission, who said that there are "important differences" as far as this affects Britain. I could go on to quote the President of the European Parliament, who says exactly the same—that
	"The special needs of the United Kingdom have been ... taken into account."
	The way in which the treaty affects Britain is different from the way it affects the other 26 countries. Again, I would think more of what the hon. Gentleman was saying if he had not voted against a referendum in 1992.

Adrian Bailey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most compelling global issues that we face is climate change and the role of emissions trading? Europe is vital in dealing with that issue. Does he agree that a debate on the treaty would be a diversion from the real work that we should be doing with Europe and that, by calling into question this Government's commitment to Europe, it would undermine our ability to shape that debate?

Gordon Brown: I hope that my hon. Friend will have the chance to read "Global Europe", the document that has just been published by the Government, which seeks to set the agenda for future years. There is general agreement that the environment, and how Europe deals with climate change, is an important issue on which we will make very little progress without co-operation across Europe. I hope that Opposition Members realise that if we are to make progress on climate change, we need to work with our European partners. We are very happy to follow the agenda that we have set down, and I hope that my hon. Friend will join us in pressing our European colleagues to move faster on the matter.

Patrick Cormack: As the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that the House will have full opportunity to debate the treaty, will he give a firm, unequivocal and binding commitment that that business will not be timetabled?

Gordon Brown: There will be a full chance to discuss all the issues in Parliament.

Mark Hendrick: Does my right hon. Friend believe, like me, that the siren voices calling for a referendum are abdicating their responsibility as parliamentarians by trying to bypass the House's decision-making powers?

Gordon Brown: There will be ample opportunity for the amending treaty to be debated in full in the Chamber of the House of Commons so that people can judge for themselves whether we have secured the proper protections. Although eight or nine countries proposed referendums for the old constitutional treaty, only one country in the European Union—Ireland, which is constitutionally obliged to hold referendums on many matters, including the treaty—will hold a referendum. All the other countries that previously proposed referendums will not have them.

David Curry: Does the Prime Minister accept that the enlargement of the European Union was the biggest peaceful realignment of Europe since the decline of the western Roman empire? As it represented a major British triumph, will he conduct the debate in terms of the achievement of British objectives, and resist the temptation that so much of the press offer to regard our membership of the European Union as a continuation of world war two by other means?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Every part of the House supported the enlargement of the European Union. The reason for the new treaty is that we have to take into account the fact that there are 27 members of the European Union and the arrangements that were suitable for six, 12 or 15 are no longer appropriate when representatives of 27 countries are sitting round a table. Many of the changes in the treaty are directly to deal with that fact. I hope that we can say to countries in eastern Europe that we welcome their participation in the European Union and that we will do everything we can to integrate them into its workings. The treaty is very much part of that. On the protections for Britain, we can assure the British people that we have defended the British national interest in the way they expect us to do.

Andrew MacKinlay: Does the Prime Minister understand that many pro-Europeans who do not believe that a referendum is appropriate for the treaty nevertheless believe that a time is coming when we will have to hold a referendum to reaffirm our membership of the European Union, and that that will help focus men's minds, including those in the Conservative party and the press? It would be make-your-mind-up time and we would be able to go out to argue with them in favour of membership of the European Union. That would distinguish between those of us who see it as a force for good, reconciliation, commerce and politics and the flat earth society, which seems to dominate the Conservative party.

Gordon Brown: When the debate is held in the House of Commons on the amending treaty, people will come to the view that our membership of the European Union is in the national interest. They will see the number of jobs that comes from our membership, the contacts in business from which we benefit and the scope for our making progress on the environment, and they will realise that, when the common foreign and security policy works, with Europe working together in unanimity, that can often make a huge difference in the conduct of foreign affairs. As we have that debate, I hope that people will see that our membership of the European Union benefits Britain.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Points of Order

Bob Spink: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given notice of this point of order to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo).  The Independent today quotes an official setting out details of the evidence that the right hon. Lady will give in response to questions to be put to her by the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Wednesday this week. Surely Ministers' evidence to Select Committees should not be set out in advance of their receiving the questions from the Committees. How can the Science and Technology Committee function if Ministers treat us, Parliament and the public with such discourtesy? Will you look into the matter and, if necessary, ask the Minister to come before the House to explain her position?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice of the point of order.

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Let me answer the previous point of order. I gather that the Department's written evidence to the Committee, which has been published, has already indicated the Minister's view on the issue. The hon. Gentleman will, in any event, have a chance to question the Minister on Wednesday in the Committee.

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During altercations with the Prime Minister just now, I understand that it was not appropriate for me to ask the question that I would now like to put to you as a point of order. However, the Prime Minister made certain assertions about what I have said in the House. I should like to put it on record that I request chapter and verse from him. I think, Mr. Speaker, that you will find that his assertions were not accurate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is awfully good at pursuing the argument through points of order. I will not rise to the bait.

Serious Crime Bill  [Lords] [Ways and Means]

Vernon Coaker: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Serious Crime Bill [ Lords], it is expedient to authorise the recovery of costs in relation to authorised monitors.
	The resolution is necessary because if the House chooses to accept the amendments tabled in the name of the Home Secretary, the Bill will include provision for recovering the costs of authorised monitors from those organisations that have been involved in serious crime. The resolution is a financial provision that is minimal in terms of the amounts of money involved as a whole. We anticipate roughly 30 orders to be made each year. The vast majority of such orders will be against individuals, with only a small number anticipated each year for use against organisations. Of that small number, we do not think that the inclusion of an authorised monitor will be appropriate in many cases. The overall number of such orders will therefore be minimal, but they could be useful where used.
	Monitors take forward the Government's commitment to approaching the regulation of business in an intelligent, risk-based fashion. It is not useful or an encouragement to economic growth to engage in blanket regulation of the business sector, where that is avoidable. However, where organisations are involved in serious crime—for example, where they are being used as tools for money laundering or fraud—we must act to intervene in a targeted and specific manner. That is why the Bill provides that serious crime prevention orders can be used against organisations. That will give law enforcement a flexible means of preventing continued involvement in serious crime by the organisation.
	Any regulation comes with a cost to it, which is precisely why we want to avoid spreading the burden of that regulation too widely. Monitors will be able to provide a useful service, in ensuring that the other terms of an order are being complied with. For example, an expert in corporate governance will be able to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the Minister, but we are actually on the ways and means resolution. Is that what the Minister is speaking to?

Vernon Coaker: It is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to outline why the costs that are implicit in the Bill are relevant and appropriate.
	Any regulation comes with a cost to it, which is precisely why we want to avoid spreading the burden of that regulation too widely. Monitors will be able to provide a useful service to ensure that the other terms of an order are being complied with. For example, an expert in corporate governance will be able to make an assessment of whether a requirement to put in place appropriate systems in a company to ensure that it is not used for serious criminal purposes has been complied with. That is expertise that law enforcement might well not have.
	As well as such terms of an order being used rarely, as I have said, the costs to the organisation will be reasonable and proportionate. We have also included certain safeguards, to ensure that the costs are proportionate to any organisations that might be made subject to a serious crime prevention order. Such a term of an order will require only those organisations that have been proved to be involved in serious crime to pay an additional reasonable and proportionate cost, in order that we can ensure that they are not engaged in serious crime. That is surely preferable and more proportionate in achieving the desired end, in that it steers a course between letting the criminal behaviour continue and seeking to end the activities of that organisation altogether. As a result, I am confident that the imposition of costs is appropriate.

James Brokenshire: This proposal, relating to the establishment of new monitors under serious crime prevention orders contemplated in the Bill, is a late addition. I note what the Minister has said about the necessity for the monitors, but that is a matter for our debate on the substantive elements of the Bill and on the way in which the Government have tabled the amendments to it. It is surprising that the Government are tabling such amendments at this late stage, especially as the Bill has already been scrutinised in the other place. It raises concerns about the extent to which the provisions have been examined, but we will debate that in greater detail outside the Ways and Means resolution. We shall not oppose the resolution, but that should not be taken as our acceptance of, or acquiescence in, the general arguments on the creation of monitors arising from serious crime prevention orders.
	 Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

Serious Crime Bill  [Lords]

As amended in the Committee, considered.
	 [Relevant documents: Twelfth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights of Session 2006-07, Legislative Scrutiny: Fifth Progress Report, HC 490.]

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Compliance with orders: authorised monitors

'(1) A serious crime prevention order against a body corporate, partnership or unincorporated association may authorise a law enforcement agency to enter into arrangements with—
	(a) a specified person; or
	(b) any person who falls within a specified description of persons;
	to perform specified monitoring services or monitoring services of a specified description.
	(2) A person with whom the agency has entered into arrangements in accordance with such an authorisation is known for the purposes of this section as an authorised monitor.
	(3) A serious crime prevention order which provides for an authorised monitor may, for the purpose of enabling the performance of monitoring services, impose requirements of the type mentioned in section 5(5) as if the references in paragraph (a)(iv) and (b)(iv) of that provision to a law enforcement officer included references to an authorised monitor.
	(4) A serious crime prevention order which provides for an authorised monitor may require any body corporate, partnership or unincorporated association which is the subject of the order to pay to the law enforcement agency concerned some or all of the costs incurred by the agency under the arrangements with the authorised monitor.
	(5) Any such order—
	(a) must specify the period, or periods, within which payments are to be made;
	(b) may require the making of payments on account;
	(c) may include other terms about the calculation or payment of costs.
	(6) The tests for making or varying a serious crime prevention order in sections 1(1)(b), (2)(b) and (3), 17(1) and (2), 19(2), (4) and (5), 20(2) and (4) and 21(2) and (4) do not operate in relation to an order so far as the order contains terms of the kind envisaged by subsections (4) and (5) above (or by subsection (1) above for the purposes of those subsections).
	(7) But a court must not include in a serious crime prevention order (whether initially or on a variation) terms of the kind envisaged by subsection (4) or (5) unless it considers that it is appropriate to do so having regard to all the circumstances including, in particular—
	(a) the means of the body corporate, partnership or unincorporated association concerned;
	(b) the expected size of the costs; and
	(c) the effect of the terms on the ability of any body corporate, partnership or unincorporated association which is carrying on business to continue to do so.
	(8) A law enforcement agency must inform the subject of a serious crime prevention order which provides for an authorised monitor of the name of, and an address for, any person with whom the agency has entered into arrangements in accordance with the authorisation in the order.
	(9) Nothing in this section affects the ability of law enforcement agencies to enter into arrangements otherwise than in accordance with an authorisation under this section.
	(10) In this section—
	"law enforcement agency" means—
	(a) a police authority or the Northern Ireland Policing Board;(b) the Serious Organised Crime Agency;(c) the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs; or(d) the Director of the Serious Fraud Office;
	"monitoring services" means—
	(a) analysing some or all information received in accordance with a serious crime prevention order;(b) reporting to a law enforcement officer as to whether, on the basis of the information and any other information analysed for this purpose, the subject of the order appears to be complying with the order or any part of it; and(c) any related services; and
	"specified", in relation to a serious crime prevention order, means specified in the order.'.— [Mr. Coaker.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Vernon Coaker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government new clause 2— Costs in relation to authorised monitors.
	Government amendment No. 15.

Vernon Coaker: In his report, "Regulatory Justice: Making Sanctions Effective", Professor McCrory advocated that
	"regulatory sanctions were consistent with, and appropriate for, a risk based approach to regulation, as set out in recommendation eight of the Hampton Review. The Hampton Review recommended that the penalty regime should be based on the risk of re-offending and the impact of the offence...with tougher penalties for rogue businesses that persistently break the rules."
	There is a significant read-across between the approach that he advocates and the innovative and targeted approach to involvement in serious crime that we are proposing in the amendments. We have already discussed the fact that businesses are increasingly used by serious criminals as the means by which they, for example, launder money or attempt to disguise activities such as people-trafficking or drug-trafficking. Businesses can be in more than one place at a time, they can have complicated legal structures and they can carry out exceedingly complex business and large amounts of transactions on a daily basis. All those things make them very difficult to interdict for their involvement or use in serious criminal enterprises.
	The Serious Organised Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the rest of the law enforcement community are constantly developing and using innovative approaches to dealing with this problem. They are having significant successes and should be commended. However, the inexhaustible potential for using businesses in different ways to further serious criminal ends means that that work is not always enough.
	The amendments will mean that, for example, where a business has been proved to be involved in serious crime, an order can require it to provide its accounts or other information to an authorised monitor, to ensure that it complies with a requirement not to conduct its business in a particular way. That will be effective where the information is particularly complex and where someone such as a forensic accountant will be able to make a far better assessment than a law enforcement agency of the way in which the business is conducting itself. If the court authorises a law enforcement agency to employ a monitor, it can go on to provide, as a term of the order, that the organisation that is the subject of the order must pay the costs that the law enforcement agency incurs in employing the authorised monitor. That effectively increases the regulatory burden on a business because it has been proved to be involved in serious crime. The provisions target regulation in a risk-based manner, and mean that burdensome regulatory approaches do not have to be taken to deal with the few bad apples in any business area. Regulation does impose a cost on business, but we can all agree that this is better than the results of no regulation at all.

James Brokenshire: The Minister has talked about the application of the orders and the way in which they would need to be monitored, and I understand his point about the complexity of corporate structures and how businesses might be used. Will he explain, however, whether the orders will require the recipient to have knowledge that they have committed or been involved in a serious crime? There could be a risk that someone unknowingly involved in such a crime could be the subject of an order and have to pay the cost of the monitoring.

Vernon Coaker: We went through that debate at great length in Committee. The applicant authority would have had to go to court over any organisation that was the subject of a serious crime prevention order. Only in circumstances where someone had either encouraged or facilitated a crime would they be made the subject of a serious crime prevention order. The hon. Gentleman's point would have been considered by the court before deciding whether to apply the order. There is the potential, in appropriate circumstances, for there to be a burden on the business concerned, but that is to be preferred to the potential cost of having to regulate an entire sector.
	The provisions include a safeguard whereby the courts will impose a requirement to pay costs only where it considers it appropriate to do so. In reaching that decision, it will have regard to the means of the body corporate, partnership or unincorporated association concerned; to the expected size of the costs; and to the effect of the terms on the ability of any body corporate, partnership or unincorporated association that is carrying on business to continue to do so. That provides a strong steer to the courts to ensure that the orders are used only where the overall effect on the business is not such as to cause damage to it as an ongoing concern.

James Brokenshire: The Minister talks about the assessment of the costs of the order and of the monitoring. How is it likely to be presented to the court and what scope would there be for any re-assessment of such costs, which, at the outset, may not be readily calculable when the court is considering the matter?

Vernon Coaker: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the practical arrangements for deciding how costs are to be arrived at will be done through order. It is one important aspect of the order making power, so as it goes through, we need to consider the practical consequences, how costs will be apportioned and what amounts are appropriate. The important point in respect of the primary legislation, however, is the existence of safeguards for any business, organisation or partnership—and they are set out in the provisions. As I have explained, we want to ensure that businesses made subject to a serious crime prevention order by the courts abide by the terms of that order. By the use of a forensic accountant or other suitable professional, we want to ensure that businesses comply, but we do not want to do so in a disproportionate way—hence the safeguards that I have outlined. I rather think that the hon. Gentleman knew the answer to his question before he asked it: costs will be subject to the order making process.
	The new clause strikes an appropriate balance between the need to ensure that businesses are not used by serious criminals and the need to ensure that the business sector as a whole is not damaged by measures designed to combat the few. I thus commend the new clause to the House.

James Brokenshire: The first thing to note about new clause 1 and the accompanying new clause 2 is that they are obviously very late in consideration. Given what the Minister has said about their importance and necessity, it is surprising that we are considering these proposals on Report—after the entirety of the Bill has already been examined.
	I acknowledge what the Minister has said about the complexity of what is involved. I accept that in serious and organised crime, criminals will go to great lengths to ensure that their true purpose is disguised and that different corporate structures may be used to try to hide criminal activity. On the face of it, whatever the merits of serious crime prevention orders—we will come on to debate them later—if they are to apply and be effective, there is clearly a need for monitoring to ensure that their terms are adhered to. Without proper monitoring the orders will be ineffective, because it will not be known whether they have been breached and whether the appropriate sanctions should apply. I realise that the position is complex and that on the face of it there is a need for experts to be involved, but the new clause leaves a good deal of room for improvement.
	I want to raise a few points on which I have sought elucidation from the Minister. The key point is that, while a person or corporate body subject to a serious crime prevention order would need to appear before a court, that person or body would not necessarily have committed a serious offence, but would only have had to be involved in a serious crime. We shall discuss that more fully during our wider debate on the orders themselves.
	It might be said that involvement in a serious crime indicated a direct link and was therefore extremely important, but the wording of the Bill suggests that the link may be somewhat more indirect. Clause 2(1)(b) and (c) make it clear that such involvement could include a person's facilitating the commission of a serious offence, or conducting himself
	"in a way that was likely to facilitate the commission"
	of a serious offence. There is no requirement for intention in those circumstances. Indeed, clause 4(2) imposes what is almost a reverse burden of proof on the person who is potentially subject to an order, who must show that his actions were "reasonable in the circumstances".
	The Minister said that only about 30 orders a year would be issued, and that has been stated consistently and clearly throughout the review of the draft legislation. What is not clear is whether this measure is really about the Mr. Bigs or whether it is likely to be used far more widely than the Minister intends, purely because of the way in which it is drafted. That is worrying in this context and a number of others. Notwithstanding possible assurances that the measure is supposed to be limited and to attack only the very central figures, it could be interpreted as allowing peripheral figures who, despite having no direct intention and no direct knowledge that they have facilitated or been engaged in facilitating serious crime, may find themselves subject to a serious crime prevention order—and, subsequently, to another order requiring them to pay for the monitoring of their compliance with it.
	That potential injustice leaves me extremely uncomfortable with the ambit of the new clause, despite the Minister's statement that it is intended to focus only on a very small group of corporates, and to ensure that forensic accountants and experts are brought in to aid the monitoring, enforcement and interpretation of the orders. That second aspect—cost—strikes me as extremely important. I have already described the legislation as wide ranging and potentially draconian. New clause 1(4) states
	"A serious crime prevention order which provides for an authorised monitor may require any body corporate, partnership or unincorporated association which is the subject of the order to pay to the law enforcement agency concerned some or all of the costs incurred by the agency under the arrangements with the authorised monitor."
	It goes on to state that payments on account may also be required, which effectively means that payment must be made in advance of the monitoring.
	As we have heard from the Minister, it is unclear how those costs will be assessed; in essence, they will be drawn in through secondary legislation. It is also unclear how the court will determine those costs and, therefore, the impact on the business concerned. He has tried to point out the protections in new clause 1(7), which is intended to give the courts a particular role in assessing the relevant circumstances, examining
	"(a) the means of the body corporate...
	(b) the expected size of the costs".
	The provision also deals with the effect that the order and the monitoring would have on that body corporate.
	We do not know what those costs will be, how they will be assessed and how they will be measured. The court will be put in a difficult position in assessing the impact of the order on the body—the company or business—because it will have to undertake a detailed examination and review of the finances, the business and the way in which the company operates to assess whether the order would have a particular effect and whether it would risk the bankruptcy, liquidation or winding up of the company. That will be a hard decision for the court to make, particularly given that it will have to make an assessment of costs that may subsequently change.
	I am sure that the Minister will say that the Government will set out in the order what the compliance should be, what the terms of the order are and therefore why there is a need for monitoring, but difficulties are involved. Given my professional background, I know that sometimes the costs that one is given in advance may not end up being the costs that arise. The monitor—this expert—will have to make a judgment about what is involved and what its own professional costs are likely to be in seeking the order in the first place.
	The court will be in a difficult position. How will it go about assessing the costs and the impact when it may have limited information on that body corporate? It will clearly not have a full understanding of how that company conducts its business, the pressures on it and the market conditions. This provision could have a significant adverse impact on businesses if a wrong judgment is made, with the best of intentions, based on information that is not complete at the time that a monitoring condition is applied. We could risk creating injustice, particularly if an order was granted against a company whose involvement was peripheral, not intended, not direct and almost without knowledge, even though the court may have been able to show that it should have taken some other action and that is why it is brought within the scope of the serious crime prevention order in the first place.
	New clause 1(6) deals with the tests for making serious crime prevention orders. The Minister will be familiar with our debates on Second Reading and in Committee about harm reduction versus punishment. He has said on many occasions, as I am sure he will say this afternoon and this evening, that the Bill is only about harm reduction—it is about preventing serious crime—and that it is not about punishment. One can form one's own judgment about whether that is the reality in the Bill, but subsection (6) raises interesting questions that deserve greater scrutiny.

Jeremy Browne: Does the hon. Gentleman see a distinction, as I do, between using these powers to restrict the freedoms of people whose prison sentence has been spent but who have been convicted of an offence, and using them in a preventive capacity in respect of people who may never have been convicted of any offence?

James Brokenshire: Well, there is an issue in the way in which civil orders can be used for crime prevention. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fact that the orders can be used in two separate ways. One is almost as a post-bail or a post-conviction prevention order, in which the intention is almost to get someone back behind bars as soon as possible by virtue of a breach. That is a criticism that has been levelled at some of the other civil orders that the Government have introduced. The other is use of the order before any criminal conviction has been obtained, and that raises issues of appropriateness, especially when the criminal law could be applied and some sort of criminal sanction invoked. That is a point that we will debate in greater detail when we reach serious crime prevention orders later.
	New clause 1(6) states:
	"The tests for making or varying a serious crime prevention order"—
	it then lists various sections—
	"do not operate in relation to an order so far as the order contains terms of the kind envisaged by subsections (4) and (5) above."
	In other words, monitoring should occur. The particular parts of the Bill that are being carved out by that provision are those to do with preventive measures. For example, I draw the Minister's attention to clause 1(1)(b), which provides that the court may make an order if
	"it has reasonable grounds to believe that the order would protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting involvement by the person in serious crime in England and Wales."
	In other words, that limb—the necessity for the court to be satisfied that the order would prevent crime—would be carved out by new clause 1(6). That is a bit odd, if the intention is to prevent, rather than to punish. That is an important point for how the orders are used and, in terms of the European convention on human rights, to ensure that the Bill is not construed as providing for punishment. It is essential that the orders should be preventive, not punishment, but new clause 1(6) would take out all the relevant provisions on orders that will have a monitor granted to them. That is perverse and bizarre and, when the Minister winds up, I trust that he will give some explanation of it.
	The way in which the provision is drafted suggests that it may also apply to the whole of the serious crime prevention order, rather than just to the monitoring aspects. That would make the orders very wide and draconian in their application in the particular aspects. The late inclusion of this wide-ranging new clause raises many questions, and it has not had proper scrutiny and debate.

Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman made a reasonable point about the application of new clause 1(6), but then made the wild assertion that it would apply to serious crime prevention orders as a whole. If he reads further, he will see that it is limited to the new clause, and does not apply to the whole Bill.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to the Minister if that is what is intended, but new clause 1(6) states that it does not operate
	"in relation to an order".
	While it may continue
	"so far as the order contains terms of the kind envisaged by subsections (4) and (5) above",
	it does imply that it could apply to orders more generally. However, I welcome the Minister's intervention to make it clear that the provision is intended to deal only with the monitoring aspects, not the aspects of wider concern. Even so, in terms of monitoring, surely the orders should be intended to prevent crime. Otherwise, why are they there? He has said that the provision is not intended more generally, but it is still questionable whether the removal of the sections in question will cause problems with compliance with the European convention on human rights. Perhaps he can reflect on that point in further detail when he winds up.
	The Minister said that the costs will be dealt with in secondary legislation, so we do not yet know how they will be assessed. How will appeals against the costs work? New clause 2 states that costs could be subject to appeal, and that
	"Such provision may, in particular, include provision about appeals."
	Can the Minister shed any more light on the Government's intentions relating to appeals against costs? The costs could be significant and the regulations could have a damaging impact on businesses.
	The proposals note that the steps an enforcement agency can take to recover costs will also be covered by secondary legislation, but again the Minister has not talked in great detail about the Government's intentions in that regard. Will the relevant enforcement agencies have the right to bankrupt and wind up a company that is unable to pay for monitoring costs—however damaging their impact might be?
	The Government have decided to introduce these provisions hurriedly at a late stage, and there is a lack of detail in terms of costs, how the courts will assess companies, whether appeals against the costs will be allowed and how they will operate, what the time scales will be and what the rights of challenge will be. Once the costs are in place, what rights will enforcement agencies have and how will they operate in practice? What discretion will the agencies have in recovering the costs?
	I accept that if costs are levied it is right, on the face of it, that the company should pick them up, but there is a duty on law enforcement to deal with its monitoring. The proposals could place a significant burden on companies and the House is not yet clear about the context for the provisions or their scale and nature. Based on the information we have been given, I remain concerned about the risk of injustice due to the lack of clarity and certainty in new clauses 1 and 2.

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly on new clause 1.
	I echo the concerns that have just been expressed about the introduction of such wide-ranging and important provisions at this stage of our deliberations. We had opportunities for exhaustive discussion of the Bill in Committee, when we went through it in great detail, so it is alarming that new provisions are being introduced in this way.
	Three aspects of the new clause give me cause for concern, and I shall be interested in the Minister's response. The first is that the provision is extremely wide-ranging. It shines a light on a larger concern about the Bill as a whole, which is that there are conflicting stories about the number of people who will be caught up by the provisions.
	In Committee and in his speech today, the Minister was keen to stress that the provisions will apply to only a small number of people. Those assurances are not in writing in the Bill, but the background mood music is that we need not be overly concerned that the provisions will be routinely applied, as they will catch only a small number of particularly burdensome criminals. None the less, representations to me from agencies and others who are broadly supportive of the measure make much more extravagant claims about its impact on my constituents. If 30 or 40 people a year are caught up by the provisions, it is unlikely that any of them will be my constituents. Of course, there will be a knock-on effect in terms of the impact that is caused, but it would be interesting to know how many people are likely to be caught by these provisions. Although there is a point of principle, a matter of degree also applies, and so far, that is not at all clear.
	The second point that gives cause for concern is that the specific people are not defined in the Bill. Therefore, it is difficult to understand how, when such services are contracted out to various outside agencies, checks and balances will be in place to ensure that the powers are wielded responsibly and in a way that would satisfy an elected representative, such as myself.
	The third issue that gives me cause for concern—I would be interested to hear the Minister's response—was raised by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) and relates to the obligation on the subject of the order to pay the costs. That could be a very serious sanction against someone who has not necessarily committed a criminal offence. I would be interested to know whether the Minister felt that there could be a cap on those costs. I ask him for more detail on how he thinks that will work in practice.

Vernon Coaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) for recognising the complexity of the Bill and for, quite frankly, the decent way in which he admitted that fact. Some of these provisions are very technical, complex and difficult. That is why some of these amendments are being debated on the Floor of the House. I make no apology, however, for introducing something that will significantly improve the Bill. It would be somewhat ridiculous if, because I might be embarrassed about the fact that the hon. Gentleman would complain about such late additions to the Bill, I did not introduce amendments that improve it and make a significant difference to it. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I apologise for the late introduction of new clause 1 and to the House for the lateness of some of the amendments, but I do not apologise for the fact that provisions, such as new clause 1, will make a significant difference and are significant improvements to the Bill, and it is therefore important that we debate them today.

James Brokenshire: The Minister says that he believes that new clause 1 will make a significant difference. He has also said that, in essence, about 30 such orders will be granted a year. How many orders does he think will be granted subject to the monitoring requirements set out in these new clauses?

Vernon Coaker: I do not know the answer to that, but the serious crime prevention order as laid out in the Bill should be available to the courts. That will be a matter for the courts, and it will be for the applicant authorities to go to the courts where they think it appropriate and where they think that a serious crime prevention order will seriously impact on crime. With respect to new clause 1, the inclusion of authorised monitors is important because it will make the serious crime prevention orders more effective, as they apply to businesses and organisations. Let me suggest to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) that I would have thought that all of us are united in wanting to ensure that serious crime prevention orders imposed on businesses and organisations are enforced and made to work, so that we can all see that they have credibility, and the use of authorised monitors will ensure that the terms are agreed to and, importantly, complied with.
	The hon. Member for Hornchurch talked about complexity. I said in my introductory remarks that businesses might want to use the complexity of the arrangements to hide accounts, transactions or what they are doing. That means that law enforcers will at times need the experience, ability, knowledge and skills of forensic accountants, who can scrutinise the accounts in a way that many law enforcers cannot. That means that the serious crime prevention order will prevent the serious crime that we are talking about. When such an order is made, we will be able to ensure that the terms are agreed with.
	He talked about the arrangements relating to costs. Of course, the courts will consider the costs when making an order. If the costs change, it is open to the subject to apply to the court for variations to the costs set out in the order.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a point about bodies knowing whether they are subject to an order. An organisation will either have to be represented at proceedings, or be sent a notice by recorded delivery or hand delivery, before the order takes effect, so they will have knowledge of the order and its terms. As he will remember, if an organisation's actions are reasonable, those actions cannot form the basis of a finding that it has acted in a way that has facilitated, or is likely to facilitate, serious crime. The burden is on the organisation to prove reasonableness, because the organisation is best placed to know the background to its actions. If an applicant authority wants to make a body the subject of a serious crime prevention order, that body can use a defence of reasonableness in court. We went through that many times in Committee, as he knows. If the organisation can demonstrate that its actions were reasonable to the satisfaction of the courts, it will not be made the subject of a serious crime prevention order.
	As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is for the court to assess the evidence before it, as is the case for courts in all sorts of situations, and it is for the court to decide whether an organisation has acted reasonably under the group of new clauses that we are discussing. That is the protection against the injustice that the hon. Gentleman talked about.

James Brokenshire: The Minister highlighted the point about the assessment of the court, but that is really a question of the information presented to the court. It may not be presented with a full picture. He chided me for criticising him for the late notice of the new clauses, and our late consideration of them. What discussions has he had with the Law Society, or similar third parties that are acutely involved in considering the provisions, given that the provisions are complex, and will sit on top of an already complex situation? The complexity of the new provisions causes me concern because of the potential injustices that may arise as a result of it.

Vernon Coaker: I apologise if I chided the hon. Gentleman too harshly; I did not mean to. He will know that we are taking forward the amendments as a result of the Hampton review and the Macrory report. They pointed out the need for appropriate and proportionate regulation, and that is what we have ensured. The hon. Gentleman talked about new clause 1(6), which switches off the test in clause 1(1)(b), and asked what the justification was for that measure. It is difficult to show that authorised monitors would directly prevent serious crime, but it is important to ensure that the parts of the order that would directly prevent serious crime are complied with. That is why we included the authorised monitors in the provisions.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Bill complies with the European convention on human rights. He will have seen my statement on the subject but, again, I refer him to the protections in the new clause, which ensures that a court cannot appoint an authorised monitor to supervise a serious crime prevention order without taking into account certain circumstances, particularly those in proposed new subsection (7)(c), which refers to
	"the effect of the terms on the ability of any body corporate, partnership or unincorporated association which is carrying on business to continue to do so."
	In other words, if a serious crime prevention order is served on an organisation, and if an authorised monitor is used to ensure compliance with the order, the court must ensure through proposed new subsections 7(a), (b) and (c), that the measure is proportionate and takes into account the ability of the organisation or partnership to comply with it. With those comments, I urge the House to support the new clause.
	 Question put, That the clause be read a second time:—
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 277, Noes 204.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Costs in relation to authorised monitors

'(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision about the practice and procedure for determining the amount of—
	(a) any costs payable by virtue of section (Compliance with orders: authorised monitors)(4) and (5); and
	(b) any interest payable in respect of those costs.
	(2) Such provision may, in particular, include provision about appeals.
	(3) Where any amounts required to be paid by virtue of section (Compliance with orders: authorised monitors)(4) and (5) have not been paid within a required period, the law enforcement agency concerned must take reasonable steps to recover them and any interest payable in respect of them.
	(4) The Secretary of State must by order provide for what are reasonable steps for the purposes of subsection (3).
	(5) Any amounts which have not been recovered despite the taking of the reasonable steps are recoverable as if due to the law enforcement agency concerned by virtue of a civil order or judgment.
	(6) Where any amounts required to be paid by virtue of section (Compliance with orders: authorised monitors)(4) and (5) are, in the case of an order of the Crown Court, not paid within a required period, the unpaid balance from time to time carries interest at the rate for the time being specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 (c. 110) (interest on civil judgment debts).
	(7) For the purposes of section 25, a failure to comply with a requirement imposed by virtue of section (Compliance with orders: authorised monitors)(4) and (5) to make payments occurs when the amounts become recoverable as mentioned in subsection (5) above (and not before).
	(8) In this section "law enforcement agency" has the same meaning as in section (Compliance with orders: authorised monitors).' .—[Mr. Coaker.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Civil recovery management receivers

'(1) After section 245D of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c. 29) (property freezing orders) insert—
	"245E Receivers in connection with property freezing orders
	(1) Subsection (2) applies if—
	(a) the High Court makes a property freezing order on an application by an enforcement authority, and
	(b) the authority applies to the court to proceed under subsection (2) (whether as part of the application for the property freezing order or at any time afterwards).
	(2) The High Court may by order appoint a receiver in respect of any property to which the property freezing order applies.
	(3) An application for an order under this section may be made without notice if the circumstances are such that notice of the application would prejudice any right of the enforcement authority to obtain a recovery order in respect of any property.
	(4) In its application for an order under this section, the enforcement authority must nominate a suitably qualified person for appointment as a receiver.
	(5) Such a person may be a member of staff of the enforcement authority.
	(6) The enforcement authority may apply a sum received by it under section 280(2) in making payment of the remuneration and expenses of a receiver appointed under this section.
	(7) Subsection (6) does not apply in relation to the remuneration of the receiver if he is a member of the staff of the enforcement authority (but it does apply in relation to such remuneration if the receiver is a person providing services under arrangements made by the enforcement authority).
	245F Powers of receivers appointed under section 245E
	(1) If the High Court appoints a receiver under section 245E on an application by an enforcement authority, the court may act under this section on the application of the authority.
	(2) The court may by order authorise or require the receiver—
	(a) to exercise any of the powers mentioned in paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 (management powers) in relation to any property in respect of which the receiver is appointed,
	(b) to take any other steps the court thinks appropriate in connection with the management of any such property (including securing the detention, custody or preservation of the property in order to manage it).
	(3) The court may by order require any person in respect of whose property the receiver is appointed—
	(a) to bring the property to a place (in England and Wales or, as the case may be, Northern Ireland) specified by the receiver or to place it in the custody of the receiver (if, in either case, he is able to do so),
	(b) to do anything he is reasonably required to do by the receiver for the preservation of the property.
	(4) The court may by order require any person in respect of whose property the receiver is appointed to bring any documents relating to the property which are in his possession or control to a place (in England and Wales or, as the case may be, Northern Ireland) specified by the receiver or to place them in the custody of the receiver.
	(5) In subsection (4) "document" means anything in which information of any description is recorded.
	(6) Any prohibition on dealing with property imposed by a property freezing order does not prevent a person from complying with any requirements imposed by virtue of this section.
	(7) If—
	(a) the receiver deals with any property which is not property in respect of which he is appointed under section 245E, and
	(b) at the time he deals with the property he believes on reasonable grounds that he is entitled to do so by virtue of his appointment,
	the receiver is not liable to any person in respect of any loss or damage resulting from his dealing with the property except so far as the loss or damage is caused by his negligence.
	245G Supervision of section 245E receiver and variations
	(1) Any of the following persons may at any time apply to the High Court for directions as to the exercise of the functions of a receiver appointed under section 245E—
	(a) the receiver,
	(b) any party to the proceedings for the appointment of the receiver or the property freezing order concerned,
	(c) any person affected by any action taken by the receiver,
	(d) any person who may be affected by any action proposed to be taken by the receiver.
	(2) Before giving any directions under subsection (1), the court must give an opportunity to be heard to—
	(a) the receiver,
	(b) the parties to the proceedings for the appointment of the receiver and for the property freezing order concerned,
	(c) any person who may be interested in the application under subsection (1).
	(3) The court may at any time vary or set aside the appointment of a receiver under section 245E, any order under section 245F or any directions under this section.
	(4) Before exercising any power under subsection (3), the court must give an opportunity to be heard to—
	(a) the receiver,
	(b) the parties to the proceedings for the appointment of the receiver, for the order under section 245F or, as the case may be, for the directions under this section;
	(c) the parties to the proceedings for the property freezing order concerned,
	(d) any person who may be affected by the court's decision."
	(2) In sections 273(4)(b) and 277(7)(b) of that Act (recovery orders and consent orders: recovery of costs of pension scheme trustees or managers) after "enforcement authority," insert "receiver appointed under section 245E,".
	(3) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 to that Act (disapplication of special income tax and capital gains tax rules for receivers), after paragraph (c), insert—
	"(ca) a receiver appointed under section 245E;".'.— [Mr. Coaker.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Vernon Coaker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 14, 18, 19, 23 to 41 and 48 to 53.

Vernon Coaker: I shall begin with new clause 3. Under the civil recovery provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002—POCA—it is not possible at an interim stage for there to be a receiver whose only function is to manage property while it is frozen. That is a problem because there are civil recovery cases in which a property freezing order, which only freezes property, is not enough, as the property cannot be managed.
	On the other hand, obtaining an interim receiving order, which freezes assets and requires the appointment of an independent receiver, would be too much and is unnecessary in some cases. That is because the independent receiver, known as an interim receiver, has management, investigation and reporting functions. Due to the investigative function, it is only right that the interim receiver should be independent from either party to the civil recovery proceedings, so that accusations of any bias in the case can be avoided.
	There is an identified operational need to create a new type of receiver whose only role is to manage property. Such a receiver would not have any investigatory or reporting functions; he or she could be a member of the staff of an enforcement authority, such as the Serious Organised Crime Agency. In the Government's view, the creation of a civil recovery management receiver will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the civil recovery regime in the 2002 Act. It will result in significant savings as the primary expense in civil recovery cases is meeting the remuneration and expenses of an interim receiver. In particular, in-house management receivers would be much more cost-effective. The Assets Recovery Agency has a number of cases where the sums spent on the interim receivership already exceed the value of the assets it is pursuing. Such experience has inevitable consequences in terms of whether an enforcement authority would adopt a difficult case, which is likely to be protracted and therefore expensive, or opt for a lower value and less complex case. We want to minimise such a resource consideration in the decision-making exercise of an enforcement authority on whether it should adopt a case for civil recovery.
	Other minor amendments are consequential on new clause 3. The other amendments in this group, which are also designed to support amendments that the Bill already makes to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, relate to the disclosure of information and the delegation of the functions of the directors of the main prosecution agencies.
	Amendments Nos. 27 to 32, 35, 37 to 40, 49, 50 and 52 relate to the disclosure of information between the various agencies involved in the civil recovery of the proceeds of crime.

Stewart Hosie: Very little in the Bill relates directly to Scotland, but some of the amendments do. Although this is a slightly inelegant way of doing it, with gateway provisions for disclosure over two Acts, can the Minister confirm that the amendments change how SOCA's POCA-related activities work to allow disclosure to the Lord Advocate and Scottish Ministers? In particular, have changes been made to ensure proper disclosure of criminal confiscation, civil recovery and taxation information? Finally, are the regulations concerning disclosure of information by the Lord Advocate and Scottish Ministers unchanged?

Vernon Coaker: That was an excellent question by the hon. Gentleman, but I shall have to give it some thought before I answer him. In all seriousness, I think that I had better take some advice before I tell him something that is inaccurate and misleading.
	With the exception of its training and accreditation functions, the Assets Recovery Agency is to be merged into the Serious Organised Crime Agency under clause 72. The Assets Recovery Agency is currently the one body in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that undertakes civil recovery investigations and proceedings to recover the proceeds of crime. This civil recovery role will now transfer effectively to SOCA, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office, the Serious Fraud Office and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. In order to support these and other functions carried out under the 2002 Act by the director of the Assets Recovery Agency, there is provision in part 10 of the Act for the disclosure of information to and by the director. The main group of amendments makes similar provision to part 10 to allow for the new bodies to be able to receive and disclose information to assist them in these, and other, functions. Amendments are either made to the parent legislation of the prosecution bodies where they already have what are known as information gateway provisions, or they create a new set of provisions for those organisations that do not have such legislative gateways. The flow of information is vital to ensure the success of the civil recovery regime in taking away the proceeds of crime. The usual safeguards and established practices and procedures are followed in the provisions to prevent any actual misuse of information or accusation of misuse.
	Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 36 provide for a more effective and broad ability for the directors of the main prosecution agencies to be able to delegate their functions. The Bill confers the functions of civil recovery investigations and proceedings on to the directors. The operational reality will be that the respective directors will either delegate to their staff or contract out these functions. The amendments ensure a suitable level of flexibility in that process.
	Amendments Nos. 14, 24, 33, 34, 41, 48, 51 and 53 are minor consequential amendments reflecting the abolition of the Assets Recovery Agency. For example, the reference to that agency is to be omitted from schedule 1 to the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.

Chris Ruane: In my constituency, there is a premises on West parade, on the front of Rhyl promenade, which was the property of a drug baron who was sent away for many years for importing £55 million of cocaine. That property has remained empty for six or seven years, and it has not been confiscated. Will the measures that the Minister is outlining today help to speed up that process, and will he prioritise that specific property?

Vernon Coaker: There are two ways in which we hope to take the matter forward. It is important to recognise that the courts should be encouraged, where someone has been criminally prosecuted for an offence, to place an confiscation order on them when that person is found guilty. We also hope that the civil recovery powers available can be used in exactly the sort of circumstances that my hon. Friend has laid out. Throughout the Bill, we want to ensure that those who profit from crime lose the profits they have made, whether they are the so-called Mr. Bigs or the people to whom my hon. Friend has referred, who cause havoc and mayhem in many of our communities. With that I commend the new clause to the House, with the added reassurance to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) that I will return in due course to the points he made.

James Brokenshire: The new clause effectively provides additional provisions relating to freezing orders, which come under section 245A and the subsequent sections contained within the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Those additional orders were introduced under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, and apply only in certain circumstances where proceedings are under way to recover the proceeds of unlawful conduct. The freezing orders need to describe the property concerned and prohibit any person to whom that order applies from dealing with the property. As we said when the freezing order was introduced, it plays an important part in ensuring that we bear down on organised criminals who may be intent on misusing proceeds of crime, and in ensuring that such proceeds are recovered. We have stated on record that the orders are a good thing, so the gap that the Minister has highlighted is relevant.
	In the Minister's letter to me, and the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne), he states:
	"The amendments I have tabled to the Proceeds of Crime provisions in Part 3 of the Bill will create a Civil Recovery Management Receiver. Creating these receivers will fill a legislative gap as it is not currently possible to have a receiver whose only function in civil recovery proceedings is to manage property while it is frozen. Civil Recovery Management Receivers will provide this function."
	There is clearly a gap, and it is interesting that it has taken a little while for it to become apparent and for us to be made aware of it through the consideration of the provisions in the new clause.
	The proposal seems sensible because one of the concerns that arises in relation to frozen assets—the Minister alluded to this point—is that, when ensuring full proceeds are received, it may be necessary to manage assets while they are frozen to ensure that they do not diminish in value, and that the funds obtainable are as full as they should be. I recognise the intent behind the provision and the gap to which the Minister refers in his letter. It needs filling to ensure that we get the full proceeds required, and that there is no diminution in the value of the assets subject to the freezing order.
	We understand the context of the new clause and the point that the Minister makes. We hope that it will act to ensure that the proceeds of crime are realised in a more effective way, that the value of those assets is maximised through the procedures and process undertaken, and that the issue is dealt with appropriately.
	The Government have also tabled many other amendments, which are largely technical. I want to concentrate on amendment No. 27, which deals with section 435 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The section originally ensured that the director of the Assets Recovery Agency could use the information that he obtained in the exercise of one set of functions in connection with any of his other functions. In other words, under the 2002 Act, the director could use information gained for one purpose in another context.
	When the Bill was in Committee, the Government tried to delete section 435 from the 2002 Act. The measure before us reflects that. However, amendment No. 27 would reintroduce section 435, but in a modified fashion. The amendment would expand the scope and application of the Bill. Proposed new section 435 would apply especially to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland and the Director of the Serious Fraud Office.
	The relevant point about the proposed new section is that it provides that the relevant Director—of Public Prosecutions, of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland or of the Serious Fraud Office—can use information obtained under part 5 or part 8 of the 2002 Act,
	"in connection with his exercise of any of his other functions (whether under, or in relation to, either Part, another Part of this Act or otherwise)."
	I am concerned about the extent and scope of "or otherwise". Perhaps, when the Under-Secretary replies to the debate, he can confirm whether it is intended to have a much broader application than the original section 435—in other words, whether "or otherwise" covers all the relevant duties of the directors in all their contexts.
	Clearly, amendment No. 27 is another late amendment. A change of approach was felt to be required to section 435 of the 2002 Act, given that it was meant to be deleted, not used, at the outset. It would be interesting if the Under-Secretary shed some light on the reason for the change of approach. Why is the sharing of information felt to be required now when it was not believed to be necessary previously?
	I appreciate that the amendment's application to several different bodies reflects the way in which the Assets Recovery Agency has been divided—its authorisations do not go to only one body but several different ones. From an enforcement perspective, the relevant directors to which subsection (4) of proposed new section 435 applies reflect the intended expansion of the enforcement agencies and bodies. However, there remains a question about whether the amendment proposes an appropriate or reasonable use or expansion of the previous power, which would have been limited to those under the 2002 Act.
	The proposed new section is much more wide ranging—there appears to be no limit on the use to which information gained under the 2002 Act can be put. That may be appropriate for ensuring that illegal acts or information relevant to other prosecutions and proceedings are discovered through the powers granted by the 2002 Act. However, it is a change to the previous position and it would therefore be helpful to inform the House of the intention of the proposed new section. Is it intended to be all encompassing? Are any protections intended? Will any limits be applied? Is the amendment as wide ranging as the words "or otherwise" suggest?
	We need to understand more clearly the Under-Secretary's intention in amendment No. 27. We need to know its scope and I hope that he can answer the points that have been highlighted because it would be helpful to know the extent of the information-sharing powers and the use to which the information will be put so that we can properly understand the exact purpose of amendment No. 27.

Vernon Coaker: Let me revert to the question of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) about Scotland. He will be pleased to know that we have consulted the Scottish Executive to ensure that the status quo in relation to the Lord Advocate and Scottish Ministers is preserved. That ensures that there is no need for a legislative consent motion. Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 relate especially to Scotland. They would ensure that disclosures between SOCA, the Lord Advocate and Scottish Ministers will be tackled under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 for SOCA's Proceeds of Crime Act functions, and under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for SOCA's other functions.
	Disclosures by the other enforcement authorities are mainly tackled in the 2002 Act. Taxation information is covered in section 33 of the 2005 Act. Schedule 8(170) of the measure that we are considering also preserves the status quo. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman and that the answer is as illuminating to him as I am sure that it is to everyone else. Seriously, I hope that it is helpful. If any element of doubt remains, the hon. Gentleman should write to me or have a word with me afterwards and I shall ensure that we clarify anything that needs it.
	Let me deal with the points that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) made. I am pleased about his general welcome for the proposals. We identified a gap, which we sought to fill, so I appreciate his comments. However, we are continually trying to ascertain whether we can improve the operation of the civil recovery regime under the 2002 Act. In discussions with the Assets Recovery Agency and SOCA about the transfer of civil recovery powers to SOCA and other enforcement agencies, as the Bill sets out, we identified—at a late stage, it has to be said—the need for the new receiver. Experience of civil recovery shows that appointing an interim receiver, who has management, investigation and reporting functions, is unnecessary as well as expensive, but there is none the less a need for some sort of management role. We have tried to provide for that. At present, the civil recovery of the proceeds of crime in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the Assets Recovery Agency, as the hon. Gentleman knows. As he said, under the Bill those functions will be undertaken by a number of agencies—the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office, the Serious Fraud Office and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. Indeed, he pointed out the authorisations in proposed new section 435(4) of the 2002 Act.
	Bringing forward proposals on the disclosure of information at this late stage is the right outcome for Government policy. That inevitably makes the legislative changes complex, but the important point is that we have brought forward the amendments to ensure that all the relevant agencies are able to receive, and disclose to each other, information to assist them in their functions under the 2002 Act with respect to the changes that we have made. ARA has similar powers to disclose information in civil recovery cases. We are not breaking new ground; we are just trying to ensure that all the new agencies have the powers that ARA has had, so that the Bill works in practice. We were not in a position to bring forward the amendments earlier, because we were in discussions with each of the organisations identified in the Bill, to ensure that we got the provisions right. That took some time to achieve.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the provisions went too far, in giving the enforcement authorities almost a completely free hand, as he seemed to imply they do. However, we do not intend to give any of the enforcement authorities a completely free hand to disclose information. The proposals are essentially supporting provisions, to ensure that the new agencies can effectively pursue civil recovery. That is the whole point of what we are doing. If bodies are to be able to carry out their functions effectively, they will need information from other authorities. The 2002 Act already has provisions allowing for the disclosure of information to and by the director of ARA. Those provisions were developed in 2001-02, taking into account concerns raised by the Information Commissioner. The amendments in the group effectively reproduce the existing provisions for the agencies that will now pursue civil recovery.
	Importantly, the effect of the provisions is that the enforcement authorities will receive only the information that they need to carry out their civil recovery functions. Bodies will disclose only the relevant information that is permitted by the gateways. The provisions are not intended to circumvent restrictions on disclosure between other bodies. Disclosures that contravene the Data Protection Act 1998 or part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 are not permitted. That is an important protection, as the hon. Gentleman will know. The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 will also apply to any disclosure. With those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to accept the new clause. I welcome his general commitment to addressing the gap that we identified and to the way in which we are trying to improve the Bill, even at this late stage.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9
	 — 
	Incidents involving serious violence: powers to stop and search

'(1) In section 60(1) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) (powers to authorise stop and search if reasonable belief that there may be incidents involving serious violence etc.), before the word "or" at the end of paragraph (a), insert—
	"(aa) that—
	(i) an incident involving serious violence has taken place in England and Wales in his police area;
	(ii) a dangerous instrument or offensive weapon used in the incident is being carried in any locality in his police area by a person; and
	(iii) it is expedient to give an authorisation under this section to find the instrument or weapon;".
	(2) In section 60(9) of that Act (authorisation must be in writing), at the beginning, insert "Subject to subsection (9ZA),".
	(3) After section 60(9) of that Act insert—
	"(9ZA) An authorisation under subsection (1)(aa) need not be given in writing where it is not practicable to do so but any oral authorisation must state the matters which would otherwise have to be specified under subsection (9) and must be recorded in writing as soon as it is practicable to do so."
	(4) In section 60(9A) of that Act (application to British Transport Police)—
	(a) after "place" insert "in England and Wales"; and
	(b) after "2003" insert "and as if the reference in subsection (1)(aa)(i) above to his police area were a reference to any place falling within section 31(1)(a) to (f) of the Act of 2003".
	(5) In section 60(11) of that Act (definitions), in the definition of "offensive weapon", after "1995" insert "; but in subsections (1)(aa), (4), (5) and (6) above and subsection (11A) below includes, in the case of an incident of the kind mentioned in subsection (1)(aa)(i) above, any article used in the incident to cause or threaten injury to any person or otherwise to intimidate".
	(6) In the heading to section 60 of that Act after "of" insert ", or after,".'.— [Mr. Coaker.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Vernon Coaker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 8— Stop and Search Power
	'(1) If a police officer of or above the rank of sergeant reasonably believes—
	(a) that incidents involving serious violence may take place in any locality in his police area, and that it is expedient to give an authorisation under this section to prevent their occurrence, or
	(b) that persons are carrying offensive weapons or dangerous instruments without good reason in any locality in his police area,
	he may give an authorisation that the powers conferred by this section are to be exercisable at any place within that locality for a specified period not exceeding—
	(c) 6 hours in the case of an officer of the rank of sergeant; and
	(d) 24 hours in the case of an officer of the rank of inspector or above.
	(2) If it appears to an officer of or above the rank of superintendent that it is expedient to do so, having regard to—
	(a) the need to prevent injury or loss of life;
	(b) offences which have, or are reasonably suspected to have, been committed in connection with any activity falling within the authorisation; and
	(c) all relevant information giving rise to the belief of the relevant police officer specified in subsection (1),
	he may direct that the specified period during which the authorisation conferred under subsection (1) shall be extended to a period not exceeding a maximum of 48 hours.
	(3) If a police officer gives an authorisation under subsection (1) he must, as soon as it is practicable to do so, cause an officer of or above the rank of superintendent to be informed.
	(4) This section confers on any constable in uniform power—
	(a) to stop any pedestrian and search him or anything carried by him for offensive weapons or dangerous instruments;
	(b) to stop any vehicle and search the vehicle, its driver and any passenger for offensive weapons or dangerous instruments.
	(5) A constable may, in the exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (4) stop any person or vehicle and make any search he thinks fit whether or not he has any grounds for suspecting that the person or vehicle is carrying weapons or articles of that kind.
	(6) If, in the course of a search under this section, a constable discovers a dangerous instrument or an article which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be an offensive weapon, he may seize it.
	(7) A person who fails to stop, or to stop a vehicle, when required to do so by a constable in the exercise of his powers under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or both.
	(8) Any authorisation under this section shall—
	(a) be given in writing signed by the officer giving it or, where that is not practicable, recorded in writing as soon as it is practicable to do so, and
	(b) specify—
	(i) the grounds on which it is given,
	(ii) the period during which the powers conferred by this section are exercisable, and
	(iii) the locality in which the powers conferred by this section are exercisable.
	(9) The provisions of this section, so far as they relate to an authorisation by a member of the British Transport Police (including one who for the time being has the same powers and privileges as a member of a police force for a police area), shall have effect as if the references to a locality in his police area were references to any locality in or in the vicinity of any policed premises, or to the whole or any part of any such premises.
	(10) Where a vehicle is stopped by a constable under this section, the driver shall be entitled to obtain a written statement that the vehicle was stopped under the powers conferred by this section if he applies for such a statement not later than the end of the period of 12 months from the day on which the vehicle was stopped.
	(11) A person who is searched by a constable under this section shall be entitled to obtain a written statement that he was searched under the powers conferred by this section if he applies for such a statement not later than the end of the period of 12 months from the day on which he was searched.
	(12) Where a constable has carried out a search in the exercise of the power under subsection (4) he shall make a record of it in writing unless it is not practicable to do so in which case he shall make such written record as soon as practicable after the completion of the search.
	(13) Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is hereby repealed.
	(14) In this section—
	"British Transport Police Force" means the constables appointed under section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949;
	"dangerous instruments" means instruments which have a blade or are sharply pointed;
	"locality" means any place or area which at the time the authorisation under this section is given the public or any section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission or any other place to which people have ready access which is not a dwelling;
	"offensive weapon" has the meaning given by section 1(9) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or, in relation to Scotland, section 47(4) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995; and
	"policed premises", in relation to England and Wales, has the meaning given by section 53(3) of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 and, in relation to Scotland, means those places where members of the British Transport Police Force have the powers, protection and privileges of a constable under section 53(4)(a) of that Act (as it relates to Scotland).
	(15) For the purposes of this section, a person carries a dangerous instrument or an offensive weapon if he has it in his possession.
	(16) The powers conferred by this section are in addition to and not in derogation of, any power otherwise conferred.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 85 and 86.

Vernon Coaker: We come to an important group, as all hon. Members would agree. New clause 9 concerns police powers of stop-and-search for dangerous instruments and offensive weapons. The issue is one about which we all share a deep concern, particularly in the wake of tragedies such as the murders of 11-year-old Rhys Jones and of 15-year-old Jessie James in Manchester just over a year ago, the fatal knifing of the promising young footballer Kiyan Prince in May 2006, and the thankfully non-fatal shooting of a 13-year-old boy in Manchester only this weekend.
	Notwithstanding any differences that we might have about the issue, I do not for one moment belittle the contribution that any hon. Member makes on it. I do not for one minute believe that any hon. Member has anything other than the desire to try to do what we can to prevent more tragedies and awful events from taking place on our streets. That is an important comment to make, given the heat that is sometimes generated around such debates, and one that hon. Members will understand, given the atmosphere in the Committee as we took the Bill through.
	The Government have responded to those tragedies and those concerns by investing £1 million in the tackling gangs action programme—a programme of focused work in areas of London, Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool where gun crime and gangs are a particular issue—which was launched on 9 September. The programme's aim is to reduce serious violence, particularly that involving the use of firearms by young people as part of gang-related activity. The Home Office is working with police and local authorities to design packages that will be most effective in each area, which will include both enforcement and preventive work, and will be delivered in partnership with a range of local agencies.
	New clause 9 would extend the stop-and-search powers contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Hon. Members will know that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) and his hon. Friends have tabled a related amendment, which I am unable to recommend that we support, as I shall explain. Although the police have routine powers of stop-and-search in situations where they have a reasonable suspicion that a person is carrying certain items, section 60 of the 1994 Act provides exceptional powers for the police to authorise the stopping and searching of persons and vehicles in a locality for knives and offensive weapons—in England and Wales that includes firearms intended to be used to cause injury—without requiring reasonable suspicion. The police may use that power when they believe that a serious violent incident is likely to take place or that persons are carrying weapons in the locality. That provides a preventive power that addresses situations where an anticipated incident has not yet happened or where public order is threatened by weapon carrying en masse.
	The new clause would add a third scenario in which the power could be used, which is where a serious violent incident has taken place, and where the power would be useful in locating and taking out of circulation the weapon used in the incident and in apprehending the perpetrator. The existing preventive powers in section 60 of the 1994 Act require written authorisation, but the police would be able to make an oral authorisation to use the proposed additional power, so as to avoid any delay in the crucial moments following a violent incident.

James Brokenshire: The Minister has referred to the new scenario, which he described as being one where a serious violent incident has occurred. Presumably there must have been a reasonable belief in those circumstances that persons had been carrying an offensive weapon in that locality without due authorisation, so surely the second limb of section 60 of the 1994 Act would apply.

Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that what we are extending is the right to stop and search either people or vehicles without reasonable suspicion in the locality of the persons concerned. What the new clause will do is increase the power available in a proportionate way. Indeed, the police have said that they welcome the addition to the stop-and-search powers under the 1994 Act.
	The effect of the new clause would be to fill a small gap, whereby the police are currently unable to use their section 60 powers following a serious violent incident if they do not anticipate a further incident taking place. Knife and gun crimes are often isolated incidents and are often not followed by any further incidents. The extension of the section 60 powers that we propose would cover that scenario and allow the police to make full use of the powers to locate the weapon quickly and take it out of circulation, and to apprehend the offenders.
	The safeguards already contained in section 60 of the 1994 Act relating to the rank of an officer who may make the authorisation and the length of the authorisation will remain in force, and will serve to ensure that the new extension to the powers is used only in a way that is necessary and proportionate. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that this extended power will provide the police with a useful additional tool in the fight against crime involving knives, guns and other weapons.

Geoffrey Cox: Will the Minister tell us in what kind of circumstances this power would be useful?

Vernon Coaker: As the law stands at the moment, if there had been a shooting or a violent altercation involving knives, and the police did not think that another incident of that nature was likely in the locality, they would not be able to use their section 60 powers. Under the new proposals, if the House agrees to them, the police would be able to react to the situation and to stop and search people or vehicles in an area, without reasonable suspicion, in order to try to locate the weapon or to apprehend the perpetrators of the crime. That would be a measured and proportionate response, given the safeguards that already exist under section 60 relating to the rank of the officer and the shortness of the time in which the power has to be used—namely, 24 hours, or 48 hours if a superintendent agrees to it. Many people would be surprised that, in those limited circumstances, that power is not already available to the police. What we are saying is that section 60 exists to prevent future gun crime, while the new provisions are about reacting to something that has already taken place.

James Brokenshire: rose—

Geoffrey Cox: rose—

Vernon Coaker: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Hornchurch first.

James Brokenshire: I should like to refer the Minister to section 60(1)(b), which gives the authorisation that he has described in circumstances in which a relevant police officer reasonably believes that a person is carrying dangerous instruments or offensive weapons in any locality in his police area without good reason. Obviously the police do not feel that they are covered by that provision, but surely when a violent incident has already taken place and there is a suspicion that someone is in possession of such a weapon, the section 60(1)(b) powers would apply to give the necessary authorisation.

Vernon Coaker: That is not the view of the police, who are pleased that we are filling this gap and who support the new clause.

Geoffrey Cox: My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) has, to some extent, anticipated the point that I was going to make. If there has been a serious violent incident involving a weapon, that would be a pretty good ground for a police officer who came upon the scene fairly quickly to conclude that someone was carrying that weapon in the immediate vicinity. Under section 60, he could therefore make the appropriate declaration and exercise the power. May I put it to the Minister that the difference might be that the Government are now proposing an oral approval for the exercise of such powers, whereas approval has been required in writing up to now?

Vernon Coaker: That is certainly one change. Both the existing scenarios will require written authorisation and will not be able to be subject to an oral authorisation, but in circumstances involving the reaction to an incident that has taken place, the approval would be able to be given orally and followed up by written authorisation.
	Another situation in which this proposal might apply could involve the police believing that a weapon such as a knife had been passed on to someone else. The police might not be searching for the perpetrator, whom people might already have identified. Eye witnesses might have said that the person in blue jeans and a red jumper had done it, but he might have passed the weapon on to someone else. In those circumstances, the power to stop and search without reasonable suspicion of others would be a useful addition to the police's powers to locate the weapon.

James Brokenshire: I want to seek clarification from the Minister on the question of oral authorisation that he has identified as being necessary. Section 60(9) states that any
	"authorisation...shall be in writing signed by the officer giving it",
	and that it
	"shall also be given in writing or, where that is not practicable, recorded in writing as soon as it is practicable to do so."
	That wording suggests that it is possible to give an oral authorisation and to record it in writing later. That seems to be the oral authorisation that the Minister is describing. Does he therefore agree that these circumstances are already covered by section 60(9), or is he receiving different advice on this?

Vernon Coaker: I am receiving different advice, in the sense that, in the new scenario involving a reaction to an event that has taken place, speed will be of the essence. We shall need to be very careful indeed about requiring oral, rather than written, authorisation. That is why we are not proposing to change the requirement for written authorisation in circumstances involving prevention in relation to the two scenarios that already exist.
	As I have said, I am sure that hon. Members will agree that this extended power will provide the police with a useful additional tool in the fight against crime involving knives, guns and other weapons. Amendment No. 85 provides that the new clause should extend to England and Wales. We will work with the Scotland Office to consider how equivalent legislation should be taken forward in respect of firearms in Scotland, as the subject matter of the firearms legislation that includes search powers is reserved. However, the policing of offensive weapons, including knives and bladed instruments, is devolved. Amendment No. 86 amends the long title of the Bill to reflect the addition of this clause on stop-and-search powers.
	New clause 8 concerns police powers of stop and search for knives, guns and other offensive weapons. It would repeal section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and create a new clause in this Bill that would largely replicate it, with some changes to the way in which the powers it contains may be exercised. It is not clear to me why this approach has been taken of repealing and recreating, rather than amending, section 60.
	Section 60 provides the police with powers to authorise the stopping and searching of persons for knives and offensive weapons—which, in England and Wales, would include firearms intended to cause injury—without requiring reasonable suspicion that the person is carrying such a weapon, in a locality where a serious violence incident is anticipated or where the police believe that persons are carrying weapons.
	The new clause proposes some changes to section 60 in its current form: to lower the rank of the police officer who may make an authorisation—a sergeant would be able to make an authorisation for six hours, an inspector for 24; to add two additional considerations that must be taken into account when extending the period of the authorisation; and to allow for an authorisation to be made orally, rather than in writing, in the first instance. There are also some less significant technical changes to the application of the powers, and to some definitions contained in the clauses.
	The purpose of the new clause seems to be to increase the operational flexibility with which the police can make use of these powers, by ensuring that officers can respond to intelligence more proactively, and quickly make an authorisation under section 60 to prevent a violent incident from occurring. I have sympathy for the objectives of the new clause, and I agree that we should ensure the police have all the powers they need to tackle weapon-enabled crime, and that they should be able to make the most effective use of these powers operationally.
	As I have said, I commend the hon. Members for Hornchurch and for Taunton (Mr. Browne) for their measured approach, following the concerns expressed on both sides when a related amendment was removed from the Bill in Committee. In my view, however, the changes to the existing section 60 do not amount to very much, and add little of substance to the existing powers. The amendment that I have tabled to section 60 will increase the flexibility with which the power can be exercised in circumstances where a serious violent incident has occurred, by allowing for an authorisation to be made orally. I do not propose to change the other safeguards concerning the rank of the officer who may make an authorisation, and its duration, as I feel that they are important to ensure that the powers are used in a proportionate way.

Charles Walker: I understand that these powers would last for a certain number of hours after being invoked, but how big an area would they cover?

Vernon Coaker: That would be a matter for the police to determine, though one would expect it be in a reasonably confined area. Whatever the size of the area, however, one key consideration is to ensure that police talk to and gain the confidence of the community. We want them to take the community with them in using these powers. I and other hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, have spoken to the police and want to ensure that the powers are used proportionately. It is important for the police to discuss with the local community what they are doing and why they are doing it. The police and the local community will be able to solve the problem together.
	Our proposals address the gap where existing powers do not apply when a serious violent incident has occurred, no further incident is anticipated and public order is not necessarily threatened by the carrying of weapons en masse. The Government new clause will extend the powers so that an authorisation under section 60 could be made in this scenario to assist the police in locating the weapon and apprehending the offender who used it, following a serious violent incident.
	New clauses 8 and 9 both address similar purposes, but I hope that hon. Members will agree that the Government new clause is more substantial and has greater purpose in that it effectively fills the gap that I have described. It will be more useful to the police, who have said that they welcome it, and it will be more effective at tackling gun and knife crime. I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Hornchurch not to press new clause 8. I also want to make it clear that we intend to maintain an ongoing dialogue with the police and other stakeholders. We intend to continue to keep our policy under review to ensure that the police have all the powers they need to tackle gun and knife crime, and we intend to revisit this matter if it becomes clear that further changes are required in order to meet the common objective of reducing knife and gun crime on our streets to the lowest possible level.

James Brokenshire: There can be little doubt about the appalling consequences of violent crime and the need for appropriate measures, such as stop and search, to help prevent it from happening. The headlines this year have been dominated all too frequently with news of victims of gun and knife-related violence. What has been particularly disturbing has been the age of the victims of these tragedies. The Minister made reference to a number of cases and I share with him strong feelings of condolence for the families and disturbance about the issues that these cases highlight. The murder of 11-year-old Rhys Jones, who was shot on his way home from football training in Croxteth, shocked the entire country. It put into sharp focus the urgent need to face up to violent crime and deal with gang culture, which acts like a cancer, destroying the lives of individuals, families and communities in too many of our communities across the country.
	In 1998-99, 864 people were injured or killed using a gun; whereas by 2005-06, the number had increased to 3,821—a fourfold increase. A study by the centre for crime and justice studies at King's college, London found that attacks in which a knife was used in a successful mugging have risen from 25,500 in 2005 to 64,000 in the year running up to April 2007. Home Office research has shown that firearms are on sale in the criminal underworld for as little as £50, with polling commissioned by Policy Exchange indicating that nearly one in eight men know someone who has or has had an illegal firearm and that nearly a fifth of men say they would be able to acquire an illegal firearm. As for knives, according to a poll conducted for the Youth Justice Board in 2004, 28 per cent. of young people in mainstream schools had carried a knife in the last year.
	In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, Superintendent Leroy Logan, deputy borough commander in Hackney, described a situation of
	"growing incidents of gratuitous violence committed by younger age groups...predominantly among themselves with an increasing use of weapons in an attempt to gain respect through violence."
	The Committee also heard of the escalation of violence from young people, with one young person saying:
	"It has just escalated over the years and it has just got to the point where no-one is picking up fists, everyone is picking up guns. That is why it has just got so bad."
	The clear indication is that there is a growing prevalence of offensive weapons in our community and, sadly, a willingness among some to use them. Some have even described the possession of guns as a "fashion accessory". The situation is compounded by new routes of supply through the sale of weapons over the internet, for example, underlining the need for us to make our borders less porous and more secure. That is why it is right, in the context of the Bill, to consider the scope, adequacy and fitness for purpose of the current law relating to stop and search as part of wider measures to combat violent crime and the underlying causes of offending.
	During the Bill's passage through the other place, Lord Marlesford successfully moved an amendment introducing a right for a police constable to seal off an area and to search people and vehicles for firearms by whatever means he considers appropriate, if he has reason to believe that people may be carrying firearms.
	The noble Lord said that the purpose of the amendment was to give the police
	"a simple and over-riding power which would enable them to make it far more risky for anyone to carry an illegal firearm".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 30 April 2007; Vol. 691, c. 917.]
	In Committee, however, the Government removed Lord Marlesford's amendment, following which I made it clear that we would reflect on the proposal, which we have now done.
	The two main existing statutory powers of stop and search are found in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. There are also additional provisions in the Firearms Act 1968 and the Terrorism Act 2000. Section 1 of PACE allows a police officer to stop and search a person in a public place for offensive weapons and other items. However, the power applies only where that police officer has "reasonable suspicion" that he or she will find such items. Those terms are further clarified in the codes of practice that sit alongside PACE.
	Under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, to which the Government new clause relates, an officer of inspector rank and above has the right to authorise officers to stop and search people and vehicles within a specific locality for a period of up to 24 hours if they "reasonably believe" that crimes of serious violence may occur or that someone is carrying an offensive weapon. That authorisation can be extended by a further 24 hours with the consent of an officer of superintendent rank or above. It is important to note that this power may be exercised without the requirement of reasonable suspicion that would otherwise be needed under PACE.
	We believe that there is a need to make an important change to the powers under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. We propose to create a new right for officers of the full rank of sergeant to authorise the stop and search of pedestrians and vehicles in a specific area for a period of up to six hours, if they reasonably believe either that incidents of serious violence may occur or that people are carrying guns, knives or other offensive weapons in that area. That authorisation could be extended to a maximum of 48 hours by further direction of an officer of the rank of superintendent or above. In addition, an officer of the rank of inspector or above would have an initial authorisation of 24 hours, capable of extension to 48 hours. New clause 8 gives effect to that.
	The new measure has three intended purposes. It is intended to add a new preventive power to law enforcement, to help stamp out possession of illegal weapons and prevent violent crime from happening; to give police at operational level more flexibility to respond to intelligence and potentially fast-moving situations; and to underline the importance of community policing, anchored by the police sergeant, and help develop confidence within the neighbourhoods and areas served by the local teams.
	We believe that this is a practical, common-sense change that will help the police to combat gun and knife crime within local communities. It is supported by the Police Federation. It is all about strengthening community policing on the ground, where the beat or neighbourhood sergeant has a key role. The sergeant is likely to have a closer connection with local issues and local people, and we think that that should be recognised within the framework, constraints and protection of the existing stop-and-search power under section 60. The new clause also underlines the importance of community-based solutions as part of wider measures to tackle violent crime and social breakdown.
	We believe that a six-hour authorisation for sergeants is appropriate and proportionate to give greater assurance to the public in the fight to stamp out illegal weapons on the street. We believe that it can help to make a difference in preventing serious violent incidents, and that it contrasts with the approach of a Government who remain in denial about the extent and nature of the problem.
	As the Minister said, the Government believe that their new clause 9 will fill a small gap. Although—as our interventions have demonstrated—we do not oppose the proposed changes in principle, it is difficult to see that they will add very much. The Government argue that the changes are needed to help police to recover and apprehend the assailant when a serious act of violence has taken place but there is no belief that further such acts will take place, and that they provide the potential for an oral authorisation invoking the section 60 power. However, authorisation under section 60 can already be invoked if there is a reasonable belief that persons are carrying offensive weapons in the stop-and-search area. If the new power is to enable officers to try to get hold of the weapon following a serious incident and catch the perpetrator in possession of it, officers must have the reasonable belief that someone is carrying an offensive weapon in that area. That means that the second limb of section 60 could be applied. As for oral authorisation, as I have said, section 60(9) already contemplates that an authorisation may be recorded in writing later when the giving of a written authorisation is not practicable, and as such it already envisages an oral authorisation. However, if it is felt that clarification of the law is helpful, we will take that into account.

Vernon Coaker: The oral authorisation in section 60 applies only to the extension of an authorisation, not to the original authorisation.

James Brokenshire: That is not clear from the wording of section 60(9), but, as I have said, I am happy to take on board any clarifications that are considered helpful. My general point is that I am not persuaded by the Minister's argument that the proposal in new clause 9 is as significant as he has suggested.
	We believe that new clause 8 is proportionate and reasonable, and that as part of a framework of measures it will help to take weapons off our streets and make our communities safer places in which to live. As for whether the Government will feel persuaded to adopt our idea later and we will gain a new "magpie Minister", we shall have to wait and see, but this is a serious and considered proposal. It provides an addition to the law that we believe will make an important contribution in helping to prevent serious crime, which is supposed to be at the heart of the Bill. It is intended to help in the fight against gun crime, knife crime and other crimes of serious violence, in which one victim is one victim too many. I hope that we shall have the opportunity to put it to the vote, and that it will receive the backing of the House.

Keith Vaz: Let me begin by saying that this is no "magpie Minister" but an eagle, willing to swoop down and deal with all the dreadful criminals who are engaged in such awful behaviour.
	I think we all share the concerns that have been expressed by both my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) about the high-profile crimes that were committed in the summer this year: crimes such as the one against Rhys Jones, which have literally shocked the nation. Although crime has been falling, it is right for the Government to try to ensure—especially in this Bill—that the police are given sufficient powers to be able to deal with an increase in serious crime. It is also right for that to be done in this place, and for us to debate the issues.
	I think the Minister will find that there is all-party agreement about the need for us to give the police the powers that they need. However, I want to strike a note of caution over the proposals for extension of stop-and-search powers. I will not oppose the Government, because I believe that the thrust of what the Minister has said is correct, but I ask him to bear in mind a number of key facts, and I hope he will do so with the care with which I have always associated him.
	The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) served on the Home Affairs Committee before I became its Chairman, and participated diligently in a report on young black men and crime that was published in the summer. The Government's response arrived last Wednesday, within the time limit of two months but at a time when the Committee was abroad taking evidence on counter-terrorism. Nevertheless, it addresses the Committee's concerns.
	On the issue of stop and search specifically, the Committee's view is clear. Although there are benefits in giving the police additional powers, the Committee concluded unanimously that they were outweighed by the implications for the community trust and co-operation that the police need if they are to do their jobs effectively. That is, I think, the key fact.
	Our debate has been enlivened by the comments of Keith Jarrett, chairman of the National Black Police Association, who said over the weekend, in an open and transparent way, that he considered it important for the powers to be extended because that would give the police a better way of reaching those who commit crimes. I disagree with that view, as do other members of the association. I think that we need to look at the factual information before deciding to increase any powers. I have received no representations suggesting that the community want more stop-and-search powers because they would result in more people being apprehended; nor, I think, did the Committee during its extensive inquiry, which included the taking of evidence from young black people themselves. It is right that there should be engagement, and both the hon. Member for Hornchurch and the Minister, in their measured responses to this problem, pointed out the need for us to work within the community. Neither of them specifically said that the community itself was calling for increased powers.
	It is worth examining the statistics to get a brief flavour of the facts that have emerged as a result of the police use of stop and search. In 2004-05, 839,977 persons were stopped and searched and 12,400 stops of vehicles were recorded by the police under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and other legislation. Of those, 118,165 or 14 per cent. were of black people; 59,954 or 7 per cent. were of people of Asian origin; and 12,733 or 1.5 per cent. were of people of other ethnic origins. For England and Wales as a whole, the number of stop and searches rose by 14 per cent., from 737,137 in 2003-04 to 839,977, although that was less than the figure in 2002-03. Most of the rise was accounted for by an increase in the stopping and searching of people who were not black or Asian.
	Overall, black people were six times more likely to be searched than those who were not black—the ratio in 2003-04 was 6.4 times; if the figures for London are excluded, the ratio falls to 4.9 times. Asian people were 1.8 times as likely to be stopped and searched as white people, compared with 1.9 times as likely in the previous year. The important fact is that 11 per cent. of stop and searches resulted in an arrest. The proportion varied between police forces, from 7 per cent. in Gwent to 20 per cent. in the City of London. The problem facing us, which was correctly identified in the Select Committee report, is that the hit rate was still too low. People are prepared to accept an extension of powers if the hit rate will be improved or increased, but there was no indication from the Minister that that would happen as a result of what he proposes.
	We need to be cautious about the impact of this proposal. The hon. Member for Hornchurch, in his usual eloquent way, talked about proportionality. It is the big buzz word whenever we discuss such an issue, be it the 28-day detention period or another civil liberties matter, and it becomes extremely important. That is why I ask the Minister to examine the impact that the proposal will have on the black community. It is not right that we should have a certain set of laws that will result only in certain types of people being affected by an increase in police powers. It is important that we examine those figures.
	In conclusion, I accept the thrust of what both Front-Bench spokespeople say, although I do not support new clause 8, because it is not right when dealing with such serious issues that we should level down the rank of the person making the important decisions. The Minister is right to say that that should be kept at a certain policing level, because the difficulty of levelling it down is that things will increase. We need people of sufficient seniority to be able to deal with these important issues. He says that his proposal will help in the fight against serious crime, and I believe him, because he would not have brought the measure before the House unless he felt that it would help in the fight against crime. However, I ask him to examine the impact on communities, because once we start stigmatising communities in our country we shall be on the road to ruin for our multicultural society.

Jeremy Browne: I echo the sentiments of every previous speaker about the shock and public concern that rightly and inevitably arises from the terrible incidents that have had a high profile in the media in recent months, particularly those involving gun crime. May I suggest how the Government should proceed on this topic? There is a danger that we discuss stop and search narrowly. It is sometimes a vital power in the armoury of the police, but it is not the only power available to them. Another power is the so-called "mandatory sentence" that goes with being caught with a gun. People in my constituency and elsewhere do understand why it is not used more widely. They are led to believe that the mandatory term of five years automatically flows, save in exceptional circumstances, from someone being caught with a firearm, but it is applied in only a minority of cases. That stretches the word "mandatory" beyond most people's understanding of its definition.
	The second area on which the Government need to concentrate to a greater degree is the smuggling of firearms. The third area, which has rightly been discussed by all political parties, is how we can culturally change attitudes to guns, particularly in some communities where they often appear to be regarded as a fashion accessory rather than the lethal weapon that we know them to be.
	Gun crime attracts far more media attention than some other crimes, often because the consequences are particularly devastating, despite its rarity. Annually, more people are killed by knives than by guns, and it is worth recalling that when we have this type of discussion. It is also wise not to exaggerate the scope of the problem. That is not to say that it is not a problem in every community—it could be, at any given moment, a problem that could affect anybody in this country—but more than half of the firearms incidents recorded in the most recent year, 55 per cent. to be precise, happened in just three police force areas, those of the Metropolitan police, in whose area we are having this debate, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands. All three of those force areas have their own specialist units to tackle gang-led drugs and gun crime: Trident, X-Calibre and Engage, in that order. Special provisions are being put in place where gun crime and other types of violent crime are particularly prevalent. Stop and search has a part to play in that, but it is not the be all and end all.
	I say that because we must strike a careful balance between protecting the individual's physical safety and protecting the liberties of the individual citizen. It is a quite a draconian measure for the state to be able to stop people who have committed no criminal offence, or appear not to have done so, and search them. The power should be used with discretion and intelligence. I welcome the measures in the Government's new clause 9, specifically the four changes that I have identified that take the debate forward from the suggestions made in another place earlier in the passage of this Bill.
	First, the Government are widening the scope of stop and search to non-firearms, including knives. I have mentioned just how important that consideration is for many people. Secondly, I support the oral authorisation being allowed in the exceptional circumstances that the Minister outlined. It is important that when such instances arise, the police can be fleet of foot and are not held up in a way that most people would think perverse. Thirdly, and this is where I differ from the proposals being put forward by the Conservative party, there is a need for a senior officer to authorise these decisions. If that power is to be wielded at the expense of an individual citizen going about his or her ordinary business, people will be reassured if the decisions are made by a senior officer. Finally, I am encouraged that the Government have removed some of the grey areas that were mentioned in the other place, especially the expression "by any means necessary", which is too wide a definition of how powers of stop and search can be used.
	I am also confused by the Conservatives' position and perhaps a Front Bencher could assist me. The Conservative party's proposals, which were published on 28 August and which have the racy title, "It's Time to Fight Back", which is what one gets if one employs the former editor of the  News of the World to decide one's policies, contain a description by the party leader. He says:
	"This document sets out what the Conservative party would do in Government to tackle Britain's crime crisis."
	The first proposal is:
	"Abolish the stop form...A Conservative Government will scrap the stop form and allow officers to stop and question an individual without making a written record."
	However, new clause 8, tabled by the Conservatives, states:
	"Any authorisation under this section shall...be given in writing signed by the officer giving it."
	Further on, it states:
	"Where a vehicle is stopped by a constable under this section, the driver shall be entitled to obtain a written statement that the vehicle was stopped under the powers conferred by this section...A person who is searched by a constable under this section shall be entitled to obtain a written statement...Where a constable has carried out a search in the exercise of the power under subsection (4) he shall make a record of it in writing"—
	and so on.

James Brokenshire: I am delighted to have the opportunity to intervene. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is an important distinction between a stop and a stop and search. We believe that a stop form for a stop is inappropriate, but we recognise that recording in relation to stop and search is a different matter.

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful for the clarification. So were the Conservatives' policy to be implemented, no form would be required on stopping and questioning an individual, but if they were searched by a junior officer it would have to be put in writing. It was worth clarifying that point, because the impression created by Conservative Front Benchers is that all the paperwork is terribly burdensome and were they ever again in a position to implement policy, they would do away with all those burdens that the police find so irksome on occasion. However, that is not what new clause 8 says. I suppose that they have managed to achieve the objective of satisfying the public that the powers will not be widely used while also satisfying those who are concerned about civil liberties.
	To highlight a concern for people who take civil liberties seriously, I wish to refer to two written answers that I have received this year. On 17 April, the Government confirmed that there were 41,300 incidences of stop and search in 2005, and that represents a 94 per cent. increase in the past 10 years. On 16 October, the Government confirmed that there had been a fourfold increase in the number of people stopped under the Terrorism Act 2000, to 32,062 in 2004-05. I draw the Minister's attention to the scale of that activity. To extend the scope of stop and search and the circumstances in which it can be used will not automatically imply that more people will be stopped and searched. It may mean that the power is used with greater targeting, accuracy and effect, and for the sake of everyone who is concerned about gun and knife crime, I hope that that is the case.

Geoffrey Cox: The power to stop and search randomly is a power that should be exercised with the greatest of care. The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) made some telling points about the sensitivity that the exercise of such an apparently random power requires, especially in communities where ethnic minorities predominate. There is no doubt that in the past the power has been exercised without the necessary sensitivity, and that has caused considerable resentment in many of the communities that have been exposed to it.
	There is also no doubt, however, that we are faced with an unprecedented situation. Serious violent crime is rising. The prevalence of the use of knives on our streets is a phenomenon that is growing alarmingly. We can all cite anecdotal evidence of the use of knives at increasingly younger ages. The law enforcement authorities are faced with the impossibility of preventing the use of knives on our streets with ever diminishing inhibition by ever younger perpetrators.
	It is in those circumstances that we have heard voices recently drawing to our attention the need for greater powers for the police to be able to stop and search. It is important to recall that the powers that are exercisable under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 can be exercised only if an inspector has decided that he has reasonable grounds to suspect that a serious violent incident may take place in a particular locality or that in that particular locality there are grounds to suspect that someone is carrying a dangerous weapon.
	It is important to carry out the kind of community relations and consultation of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. It is important to get across to those communities that when the police use the power that they were given under the 1994 Act, they are doing it to protect the public, including not only those who have not been stopped, but those who have been stopped and are innocent. It is not always done with the necessary sensitivity. The right hon. Gentleman may have had experience, in a professional capacity, as I certainly have, of incidences of stop and search that have not been carried out with the sensitivity required. However, it is vital that we should remember that that critical power is used to protect all members of society, including vulnerable members of the public who are at risk from those wielding those types of weapons.
	We must start from the position that the House has conferred, in carefully safeguarded circumstances, an important power on the police. We have to ask whether we have reached a situation in which we need to consider a limited—and also carefully safeguarded—extension of that power. I believe that we have reached that position. The tide of violence that seems to be sweeping our streets among not even adults, but children, needs some measure of response. However, as the right hon. Gentleman said in his impressive contribution, it must be a measured and limited extension. That is why the Government's intention in the amendment is understandable and laudable. They propose a narrow extension. They wish to clarify the law so that there is no doubt that, where a serious violent incident has taken place, a police officer of the rank of inspector may say, "I have reasonable grounds to believe that somebody may be carrying the weapon that has been used in that incident, therefore I shall authorise random stop and search powers, in the interests of detecting crime"—note that it is for the purpose of detecting crime, not preventing it.
	The provision relates not to preventing crime but to detecting it, so, having reflected on what the Minister said, I can see that there may be some value in a clarification of the law, because it must be arguable that the law already extends to that situation. Equally, no doubt, I can imagine—I blush to confess it—a member of my profession advancing to a learned judge the proposition that the statute is plainly intended for the prevention of crime, not the detection of crime, so to purport to exercise the power under the provision is unlawful.
	The new clause clarifies the law. It does not really extend the law, as the power may already exist, but makes it clear that the law can be used for the detection of crime, not merely for the prevention of crime under the proposal. The serious violent incident could have taken place some days previously; there seems to be no proximity of time and perhaps the Minister could assist me on that point in his closing remarks. The provision does not seem to require there to be any proximity in time between the serious violent incident and the authorisation of the stop and search power. The serious violence could have taken place some months beforehand, but if the officer conceives that the weapon used in the incident is in a particular place, he can authorise the use of stop and search.
	Such clarification may be useful, but I urge the Minister to reflect on the fact that the time may have come for a measured extension of the power, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) proposes just such a measured extension. My constituency covers a large rural area, which includes five or six market towns many miles distant from a major conurbation. Their police stations are often manned not by inspectors, but by sergeants. If there is disorder in a market town or a large village—such disorders can occur even in small villages—the sergeant will be faced with the decision about the police reaction to the disorder. It may thus be valuable to permit the sergeant, without seeking out his inspector, who may be 50 miles away and have no real knowledge of the circumstances that led to the sergeant wanting to take the action, to authorise for a limited period of time—we propose six hours—the use of the stop and search power. It must be remembered, however, that the officer can do so only if he has reasonable grounds to believe that a serious violent incident may be committed or that a person is carrying a dangerous offensive weapon. In far-flung rural areas, such as the one I represent, entrusting that power to a sergeant, who may be in charge of the police station in which he is based, could be a valuable and useful measure.
	Our proposal could be valuable and it is worthy of serious reflection. It would invite, I respectfully submit to the Minister, wide consensus and it is not to be dismissed out of hand.

Charles Walker: I am grateful to be called to speak in this important debate. I did not serve on the Committee, but I speak as a parent. Like many Members, I am appalled and heartbroken every time I see yet another mother or father—another family—mourning the loss of a child. It is not just the life of the child that is destroyed—gone, vanished—but many connected lives: brothers and sisters, friends, grandparents, mothers and fathers and aunts and uncles. It is a tragedy beyond compare when a young life is needlessly taken, which is why it is so important for us in this place to come together, not just today but every day, to try to reduce the incidence of such tragedies.
	I listened carefully to the speech of the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). He made some good points. A couple of weeks ago, I was pulled over by my police when I was with my daughter travelling back from the school play. We had bought a bag of doughnuts from Tesco and were on our way home when for no reason that I could see—although it was something to do with my driving—I was pulled over by a police car that had followed me for a mile and a half. I was angry and frightened—that is me, a middle-class Member of Parliament. When I recounted the story to a friend, he asked, "How would you feel, Charles, if that was happening weekly or fortnightly and if you were black or Asian?" I can tell the House that I would feel hurt, angry and embittered towards those subjecting me to such searches. That is why we need to be careful.
	We need to balance the interests of communities and the people who live in them with the interests of those who are stopped and searched.

Keith Vaz: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recounting that story. What was the police explanation for why he was stopped?

Charles Walker: First, the officer asked whether I had been drinking, to which I replied that I had not had a drink for three and a half years. I asked why he had pulled me over and he said that my driving was erratic. I disagreed with that. Then he said, "And you were following the speed limit all the time we were behind you." I explained that as the local Member of Parliament I tend not to speed in my constituency as I do not want tickets. I was also told that I came under suspicion because I approached a roundabout at 20 mph, whereas most people do so at between 30 to 40 mph.
	There is a place for the proposed laws, but we need to make sure that they are applied sensitively and that we do not alienate members of the community whom we need on our side. If we are to tackle the appalling rates of gun and knife crime, it must be a community-wide exercise. We cannot rely on the police to do it for us, because if we do so, they will surely fail. We need to involve community leaders, parents and schools. They have the power to reach young people at an early age and set them on the right path, to teach them the difference between right and wrong.
	These laws alone will not end gun and knife crime. When they come into force, gun crime and knife crime will not fall quickly or automatically. The laws are part of a template; they are building blocks for reducing gun and knife crime, but to do so we need fully to engage our communities and the people who can and do reach young minds to ensure that they choose the right path and make the right decisions.
	It is not just that the young lives of those who are killed so tragically are snuffed out; the perpetrators of those crimes are affected, too. Often they are young people or children—almost babies. As soon as they use a knife or a gun their life, in effect, is over, too. It is important that the House understands that the issue is deeply complex. All parties must work together to ensure that over the next decade we have a happier story to tell than over the past decade.

Vernon Coaker: I thank all Opposition Members and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) for an excellent debate. It would be easy in such debates for hon. Members on both sides of the House to grandstand, to try to grab headlines and to make the easy speech. However, as Opposition Members and my right hon. Friend have said, this issue cannot be solved by headline-grabbing or populist measures, but requires a menu that includes all the various options available to us.
	No one can fail to have been moved by the families involved, and the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire), my right hon. Friend and, indeed, all hon. Members have met some of them and seen the consequences of what we are talking about: real communities, real families and real young people, whose lives have been devastated by this sort of violent crime.
	If I could do one thing at the Dispatch Box that meant that no one would be shot or stabbed and that there would be no violence at all on our streets, I would do it: I would pass that measure or seek to ensure that the House passed it tomorrow. Indeed, if any hon. Member had a magic wand that could immediately bring an end to all that violence, he or she would surely wave it. In fact, the debate has demonstrated that the solution and the progress that must be made will come about through steady actions, and the Government have taken a number of them. I want to mention a few of those actions before I address some of the comments made by Members.
	The Government have recognised that this is not only a matter of enforcing and strengthening the law; there are other solutions, although, of course, enforcing the law has an important part to play. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) mentioned the mandatory minimum five-year sentence, about which there are concerns, although the length of sentence for the possession of firearms has increased from 12.1 months in 2004 to 47.3 months. Again, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the need for the supply of guns to be prioritised, and Customs has agreed to make tackling the supply of guns a priority for the first time. Customs will therefore generate fresh intelligence on gun supply and prioritise suspected trafficking cases—another step forward that we have taken.
	Prevention is also vital. Every hon. Member who spoke in the debate not only talked about the enforcement of the law and the tough measures that need to be taken, but pointed out that prevention is crucial and that the work that takes places in communities is essential. Every Member will have been to different communities and seen the work of community groups. Surely, if we have to do one thing, it is to empower community organisations and groups in the affected areas to take the required action.
	We are looking at what more we can do to support organisations, such as Boyhood to Manhood, which works particularly well in Southwark to extend positive role models for young people, and Mothers Against Guns and Mothers Against Violence—run by people who have used the horror of what has happened to their own family to try to ensure that it does not happen to others. We are considering what we can do for street pastors—people who, through the power of their faith, go out on the streets to take action against some of the problems that we have seen.
	Let me share just one experience when I was out with the street pastors in Brixton recently, dealing with problems on the street. I do not know what other hon. Members think, but I imagined that all the street pastors would be 6 ft 6—all built a bit like the England rugby pack.  [ Interruption . ] It is good example, but an unfortunate result. In fact, when an incident arose, the person who went over and dealt with it was a 78-year-old grandmother. The young people she spoke to respected and valued her. If we could only harness such power, we could do more to prevent crime. It is not only about enforcement or tackling the supply of guns, but about prevention and working with communities. As we have heard, it is also about trying to encourage witnesses to come forward, protecting them and giving them confidence.
	There is no headline solution to the problem; there is only a solution that needs us all to take step-by-step action to cover all aspects of that problem. The hon. Member for Taunton said that we need to address the broad issues, not just those of stop and search. Given the points that I have made, I hope that he will feel that some progress is being made to ensure that there is not a one-club solution—it is not just either/or—but that all those issues taken together will ensure that a broad strategy is implemented that can make a real difference.
	I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, whom I have known for a number of years, for pointing out that, whatever decisions we make about stop-and-search powers, we need to recognise both that we can make progress only with caution and that very real problems exist—the disproportionality to which he referred. It is worth repeating, as he did, that black people are six times more likely to be stopped. If we are to be effective and proportionate, we must take account of such statistics and ensure that we do more to inspire confidence among those people that the powers that we may give to our police will not be used disproportionately.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) has told us what happened when he was stopped. He is clearly not black. Obviously, the police were not after his doughnuts. They stopped him because he seemed to be obeying the law. So as part of the deal to vote for more police powers, will my hon. Friend and his colleague, the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, ensure that the police understand that, in giving them more powers, we want them to act sensitively, whether towards black people or people who are not black?

Vernon Coaker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. We will, of course, ensure—I give him this commitment—that in extending these powers, as we hope to do under new clause 9, we speak to the police and reinforce the need for proportionality in everything that we do. Indeed, as he will know, one of the reasons we set up the stop-and-search action team was to try to address both disproportionality and to assist forces in making arrangements to record stops and to ensure that stop-and-search powers are properly implemented by the police.
	The gist of the debate is that we all agree that stop-and-search powers need to be revisited at times. We need to ensure that our laws work effectively. However, I tell the hon. Member for Hornchurch that my key objection, which is supported by the hon. Member for Taunton and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, is our concern about lowering the rank of officer who can authorise stop and searches. We are not persuaded that that would be the right thing to do. Notwithstanding the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox), in most areas that I visit across the country, both urban and rural, the local area commander—the person responsible for the delivery of neighbourhood policing—is the local inspector. In the first instance, the local inspector is the most appropriate person to determine the initial authorisation.
	The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon, who made a good speech, agreed with the action that the Government are taking and believed that it would clarify the law on extending stop-and-search powers to something that happens after a violent incident has taken place, so that we can detect crime, thus enhancing the existing powers that are intended to prevent crime. He asked us to keep the various stop-and- search measures under review at all times, and to keep under consideration the points made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch. I said in my introductory remarks that we will always keep the various powers that are available under review to ensure that the law is good, and that improvements are made where necessary.
	The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon asked me whether there is any need for proximity in time. There is no such requirement in the new clause, but the new powers should be used as close to the time of the incident as is possible.
	The hon. Member for Broxbourne talked about the need to ensure balance in the law. He made an important point. In everything that we do with respect to stop and search, we recognise that we are talking about an extension of the power and an erosion of civil liberties. In the main, that is done to try to ensure that we prevent crime and protect our communities—something that we all wish to do. The Government new clause offers a further way of protecting the public, but it does so in a proportionate and considered way. I urge the House to support it.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5
	 — 
	Sharing of communications data

'In section 25(1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c.23) (interpretation of Chapter II), for paragraph (g) substitute:—
	"(g) an ambulance service or fire authority;
	(h) the Health and Safety Executive;
	(i) the Serious Fraud Office;
	(j) any such other public authority not falling within paragraphs (a) to (i) carrying out duties of a similar type or nature to those public authorities identified in those paragraphs as may be specified for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State.".'.— [Mr. Grieve.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 42 to 46.
	Amendment No. 83, in title, line 11, leave out from 'amendments' to 'in' in line 12.

Dominic Grieve: I present to the House new clause 5, which stands in my name and the names of my hon. Friends; amendment No. 83 is consequential on it. Through its long title, the Bill offers us the opportunity of looking at the working of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, to which the Government have proposed minor amendments. RIPA, as it is known, is an extremely controversial statute. It was introduced to provide an overarching framework under which material could be obtained by Government agencies for a number of purposes set out in the legislation.
	The argument was that by setting out an overarching structure, we would simplify existing rules, which provide law enforcement agencies with a variety of powers to obtain data communications material. I should make it clear that historically there has been absolutely no doubt that such material is required by law enforcement agencies. RIPA followed on—this is rather an important aspect of the matter—from the anti-terrorism measures of 2000, in which the Government came to a voluntary agreement with service providers that the Government would retain data for counter-terrorism purposes. However, when RIPA came on to the statute book, it became apparent that far from being confined to the purposes of anti-terrorism, the material—which, under that voluntary agreement, was retained for 12 months—would be made available for a much wider range of uses. Those uses included not only the ones that one might normally expect for preventing crime, but use in connection with
	"the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom",
	and
	"the purpose of protecting public health",
	as well as public safety, emergencies, collecting taxes and, most significantly of all,
	"for any purpose...which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State",
	even if that purpose was not included in the main body of RIPA's text.
	RIPA specified a number of public authorities whose inclusion most Members would regard as absolutely straightforward—police forces, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad, Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue and intelligence services—but in addition it provided a catch-all phrase, which allowed the inclusion of
	"any such public authority not falling within"
	the list
	"as may be specified...by the Secretary of State."
	Since then, if my research is correct, three statutory instruments have been made by the Government, producing an extremely long list of public authorities that may gain access to such material for a variety of purposes.
	Again, it might be said in this House that some of the inclusions are understandable; for example, the emergency services are included, for the purposes of investigating crime—in that case, I think that the crime is likely to be hoax calls. However, the list goes on to include the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Transport, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Food Standards Agency, the Department of Health, Home Office immigration services, county and district councils, the Charity Commission, the Environment Agency, the Gaming Board, the Information Commissioner, universal service providers—that is essentially the Post Office—and the Postal Services Commission. And the list goes on.
	The vast majority of the bodies listed are included for the purposes of detecting or preventing crime, but that prompts the question whether it is a proportionate use of RIPA's draconian powers to apply them to such purposes. The criminality that a large number of the organisations mentioned are likely to investigate is not of the most serious kind. Let us take as an example the Health and Safety Executive, which our new clause would preserve in the list. I have prosecuted quite frequently for the HSE, and I accept that there may be times when, in the course of bringing a prosecution, getting hold of data relating to telephone calls that a person might have made could be useful, but the irony is that that power has always existed for use in the course of criminal proceedings. If someone thinks that they will need such material, they can always apply to the judge during the proceedings, and that applies to every single one of the organisations with which we are concerned.
	What the Government have done is provide a general power, not for the purposes of prosecuting a case, but for background investigation of the activities of individuals, where that might be necessary for the prevention of crime. It is also noteworthy that at least one of the powers in RIPA—that in clause 28(3)(c), which relates to
	"the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom"—
	has, as far as I am aware, never been used. Its use would be a rather controversial subject, particularly if it was not linked to criminality.
	When the original RIPA rules were presented in Committee upstairs, there was a storm of protest, particularly because the Government introduced the rules, and had the debate, before the publication of the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which highlighted the fact that it thought that many of the powers being granted might well not pass the proportionality test, if they were challenged. Of course, one of the problems that we have is that challenging the powers is difficult, because most people will never know that they have been investigated, and that the powers have been used. Of course, the Information Commissioner can look into those matters, but individuals may well have their privacy invaded without ever being able to protest, because they will never have known about it.
	In view of that, we thought it right to try to encourage the Government to revisit the issue during the passage of the Bill. New clause 5 is designed to allow just that. It preserves the inclusion of the public authorities that were originally provided for in RIPA—police forces, intelligence services and the like—but would merely add:
	"(g) an ambulance service or fire authority;
	(h) the Health and Safety Executive"—
	because we recognise that public safety cases may require such investigation—
	"(i) the Serious Fraud Office"
	and, most importantly,
	"(j) any such other public authority not falling within"
	the list that I gave
	"carrying out duties of a similar type".
	The purpose is to restrict the further list of public authorities essentially to the normal law enforcement agencies, and not, as is the case under the Bill, progressively to widen the scope, with the distinct possibility—and this is the most worrying prospect—that it could be further widened in future simply by statutory instrument.
	Recently, RIPA's entire architecture has been subject to criticism, as the Minister will know, by a roundabout route. As a result of an EU directive implemented by the Government, the voluntary agreement on the retention of material has become permanent with the service suppliers, and the Government now have access through the EU directive to the information to which they had access under that agreement. That raises an interesting issue—and I hope that the Minister can answer this point—as we introduced a voluntary agreement designed specifically to deal with terrorism that was extended much further in RIPA. Through an EU directive, the boundaries of the provision have extended far beyond what was originally envisaged in the voluntary agreement effectively to cover every aspect of Government activity in this country.
	That is not a happy state of affairs, and although I accept that new clause 5 is reticent in tackling the underlying problems in the legislation, which may require radical amendment, it at least offers us an opportunity to reconsider the road that we took when RIPA was passed. I do not think that the issue is going to go away: the public concern that has been expressed is entirely legitimate, and there is growing anxiety about the extent to which we may be creeping into a surveillance society. One of the arguments made for RIPA was that it would bring under one umbrella all the state's investigatory powers to obtain information on communications retention. However, that has not happened, as far as I am aware. Departments such as the Department for Work and Pensions have completely separate powers, enacted by the House, which undermines the need for RIPA in the first place.
	I hope that the Minister will respond to my concerns and consider carefully whether, in fact, there are not better ways in which to proceed. I do not entertain huge hopes that we will succeed this evening in a Division, but I hope that at least the new clause will send the Minister a signal that the matter ought to be revisited, preferably by the Government after further consultation, because it raises the question of creeping, incremental powers for the state, which is not desirable without further debate. As often happens in the House, we have succeeded in putting together a package that will have a substantial impact on the liberty of the individual without appreciating the full force of what we are about. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the proposal, even if he does not support the new clause, and explain how the Government propose to approach those problems in future.

Tony McNulty: I have no doubt that many of matters raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) are legitimate matters for debate, but this is not the time for that debate. As he suggested, new clause 5 will not achieve what he seeks to achieve, not least because of the orders that were passed on 1 October in the House. We can debate the rocky road that we have travelled on RIPA, but that is a debate for another time. The new clause seeks to address the list of public authorities that may obtain communications data under chapter 2 of part 1 of RIPA, but it fails to achieve that aim. RIPA already provides that an order specifying additional public authorities that may obtain communications data must be debated and approved by a resolution of each House.
	We had a substantive public debate in 2003 in which we set out public authorities' necessary and proportionate requirements for obtaining data, and explained why various authorities had investigating and detecting duties in safeguarding public safety and public health. Parliament discussed the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) Order in November 2003, an order amending that order in 2005, and a further amendment in 2006. Public authorities' requirements were set out in the explanatory memorandums for each order. The new clause does not undo any of those orders.

Dominic Grieve: I recommend that the Minister read the debate on the 2003 order. It was an extremely bad- tempered event, because the Government were late in presenting the relevant material to the House and they did not wait for the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Many of the criticisms that I have made today were voiced then, but the Government have not done anything about them.

Tony McNulty: I was not challenging the notion that those debates were bad tempered—I have read them, and that is extremely clear—but they are over, and orders and secondary legislation have been passed. There is nothing in the new clause that changes any of that, even though the hon. Gentleman said that that is the aim of the new clause.
	I am happy to debate RIPA and what public authorities should, or should not, be allowed to do, and what they can do with the three different grades of communications data. Much of the discussion of the orders that came into force on 1 October was based on erroneous facts. It was thought that hundreds of authorities would be allowed access to the highest level of communications data, but that is not the case. It was suggested that any number of public authorities would be allowed to access that data for tax purposes, but that is simply not the case. Naturally, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs can do so, because that is part of its duty. We were given the impression that, notwithstanding the detailed orders and regulations, there would be a free-for-all, in which, as the hon. Gentleman implied, every arm of the state would have ready access to the most detailed communications data. That is not the case, but new clause 5 fails to address that. It may a useful device in airing the notion that we need a detailed debate on the relevant provisions in RIPA—I give the hon. Gentleman that—but this is not the time to hold that debate.

Dominic Grieve: I disagree with the Minister. If the new clause were accepted, it would immediately create an incompatibility between RIPA's new wording and the scope of the orders passed by the House. The primary legislation would no longer back up the full scope of the secondary legislation, particularly the organisations that have been given those powers.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman is far more erudite and expert in those legal matters than I am. I watched with admiration as he danced on the head of a legalistic pin to good effect, but I am told in substantial terms that what he seeks will not be achieved by the measure. The impact that he seeks to achieve on the orders that came into force on 1 October will not prevail. That is a matter of dispute: the Department's lawyers challenge his view—he will be used to that position, too. However, there will be opportunities—I go this far with him—to revisit and discuss the substance of the provisions of RIPA with respect to communications data. The new clause is not the way to do that.
	Let me deal with the proposals in the Government amendments, which are straightforward. They make it clear that only senior HMRC officials can authorise the use of intrusive surveillance powers. I am pleased to bring the amendments to the House in response to concerns raised in Committee, principally by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire). Commenting on concerns raised by the Law Society, he asked that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker)—he was in Committee, happily, not me—consider whether it could be made clearer precisely who was mandated by the provisions. That is what the Government amendments seek to achieve.
	Although I accept the broad thrust of the contextual introduction by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield to debates about RIPA and communications data, this is not the place or the new clause to change that. In any case, the new clause as drafted would not achieve the hon. Gentleman's objective. In that happy consensual spirit on the Government amendments and partially consensual approach on new clause 5, I hope he will withdraw new clause 5 and that the Government amendments, tabled not least at the insistence—very eloquent, I am sure—of the hon. Member for Hornchurch, prevail.

Dominic Grieve: Let me start by saying some pleasant things to the Minister. I thank him for the amendments that the Government have tabled in respect of the level of officer in Customs and Excise authorising intrusive surveillance. We are grateful for the Minister's response to the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire). We welcome the amendments and will gladly support them.
	On our amendments, there is that classic difference of approach between Government and Opposition, which, I am afraid, will continue to separate us. The Minister may be right that the Bill, which deals with many other matters, was not the easiest place for us to focus on what we perceive to be the serious deficiencies of RIPA. I also accept that amending the legislation in order to achieve all the points that I raised in the course of debate is difficult without a complete overhaul of the architecture of the Act, but it is still worth attempting. I differ from the Minister in the belief that if the amendment were passed, it would alter the way in which the Act can be interpreted and which public authorities could remain on the list of those who could obtain the information.
	With that in mind, and with the background fact that the legislation is causing public disquiet, on which there has been a considerable amount of comment, even though I am the first to accept that its origins may have been reasonable when it was first considered, it is the duty of the Opposition at least to seek the opinion of the House to see how many Members share that disquiet. I shall therefore put the new clause to the vote.
	I am grateful to the Minister for showing a willingness to listen to some of the problems that have been caused by this area of legislation. We are undoubtedly living in a period of our history where the power and rights of the state to intrude into citizens' lives have increased beyond all recognition, compared with the position 10, 15, 20 or 30 years ago. We are in serious danger of accepting as a norm what our forefathers would have regarded as an outrage. Although there are security considerations that we must balance, on the back of security we are in danger of creating a highly regulated state that is rather poor at bringing about behavioural changes in relation to the observance of the law.
	That is one of the big topics that we must face in the House, and I suspect it is one to which we will return over and over again. It would be helpful if we could reach a degree of consensus in all parts of the House on how to strike the balance, but I am pretty well convinced in my own mind that at present the balance is far too skewed towards the intrusive powers of the state and far away from the rights of the individual.
	 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	 The House proceeded to a Division —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask the Serjeant to investigate the delay in the No Lobby?

The House having divided: Ayes 198, Noes 273.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Serious crime prevention orders

Jeremy Browne: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 1, line 6, after 'satisfied', insert 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 75, in line 6, after 'satisfied', insert 'so that it is sure'.
	No. 65, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—
	'(c) it is informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions—
	(i) that there is no reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution of the individual in respect of the involvement in serious crime in question, or
	(ii) that such a prosecution would not be in the public interest.'.
	No. 64, in line 5, after 'satisfied', insert 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
	No. 76, in line 5, after 'satisfied', insert 'so that it is sure'.
	No. 66, in line 9, at end insert—
	'(c) it is informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions—
	(i) that there is no reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution of the individual in respect of the involvement in serious crime in question, or
	(ii) that such a prosecution would not be in the public interest.'.
	No. 77, in line 13, leave out 'appropriate' and insert 'necessary and proportionate'.
	No. 67, in clause 2, line 38, leave out from '1' to end of line 41.
	No. 68, in page 3, leave out line 20.
	No. 69, in line 23, leave out from 'Wales' to end of line 27.
	No. 70, in clause 3, line 47, leave out from '1' to end of line 3 on page 4.
	No. 71, in page 4, leave out line 27.
	No. 72, in line 30, leave out from 'Ireland' to end of line 34.
	No. 73, in clause 4, page 5, line 5, leave out from 'must' to end of line 9 and insert
	'determine that the defendant acted unreasonably in the circumstances'.
	No. 74, in line 13, leave out from 'must' to end of line 17 and insert
	'determine that the defendant acted unreasonably in the circumstances'.
	No. 78, in clause 19, page 12, line 34, leave out 'appropriate' and insert 'necessary and proportionate'.
	Government amendments Nos. 1 to 10, 84, 12 and 13.
	No. 79, in clause 35, page 25, line 20, leave out subsection (2).
	No. 80, in line 25, leave out from 'is' to 'that' in line 27.
	Government amendment Nos. 16 and 17.
	No. 81, in schedule 1, page 56, line 27, at end insert—
	 'Computer Crime
	13A An offence under section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (unauthorised access to computer material).
	13B An offence under section 2 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (unauthorised access with intent to commit or facilitate the commission of further offences).
	13C An offence under section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (unauthorised modification of computer material).'.
	No. 82, in page 60, line 31, at end insert—
	 'Computer Crime
	25A An offence under section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (unauthorised access to computer material).
	25B An offence under section 2 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (unauthorised access with intent to commit or facilitate the commission of further offences).
	25C An offence under section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (unauthorised modification of computer material).'.
	Government amendments Nos. 22 and 47.

Jeremy Browne: Most hon. Members, particularly those who sat through our extended periods in Committee, will accept that amendment No. 63 relates to the crux of this legislation—the principal reason why my party and I are uncomfortable with the Government's proposals.
	The amendment has a simple purpose: to put the criminal standard of proof into the Bill. At the moment, the Government insist that serious crime prevention orders are a preventive, not punitive, measure and that therefore the civil standard of proof is appropriate. However, I remind hon. Members that the sanctions for those who fall foul of the proposals are severe indeed: people's travel can be restricted, within the United Kingdom as well as abroad, and they may also be restricted in where they can work, live and visit. Short of sending people to prison, pretty much every imaginable restriction on the liberty of the citizen may be involved, and if people fail to comply with the orders, the sanctions extend as far as a prison sentence. In some cases somebody contravening the orders might go to prison despite never having committed a criminal offence or having been found guilty according to a criminal standard of proof.
	Furthermore, the orders can apply for anything up to five years—indeed, they are more draconian than that, because the five-year period is indefinitely renewable. Somebody could have a most severe restriction on their liberty for the remainder of their life without having committed a criminal offence or having been found guilty by any criminal standard of proof. The amendment addresses head-on that lack of legal certainty.
	Baroness Scotland said in the other place:
	"the court will look at the civil standard as a sliding scale, with the likely standard of proof for these orders being very close to the criminal standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' ".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 7 February 2007; Vol. 689, c. 729.]
	Let us stop for a moment, as we did in Committee, and consider that statement to ascertain whether it is satisfactory in respect of the protection of the citizen's liberty. The Baroness mentioned a "sliding scale"; that will ring alarm bells with some people straight away. She talked about the "likely"—another qualification—standard of proof being "very close" to the criminal standard. Everyone will note that she did not mention "the criminal standard", merely one "very close" to it.
	The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) said during earlier deliberations on the Bill:
	"On clause 1(1)(a), we would expect the standard of proof to be virtually identical to that for criminal proceedings" ——[Official Report, Serious Crime Public Bill Committee, 26 June 2007; c. 19.]
	Again, the caveat is entered: not identical, but "virtually identical". On Second Reading, the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing said:
	"we expect that the standard of proof required in relation to the question of whether a person has been involved in serious crime will be the same as in criminal cases"—[ Official Report, 12 June 2007; Vol. 461, c. 664.]
	However, that standard has not been put into the Bill; at present, according to the verbal guidance given by most Ministers, we are some way short of the criminal standard of proof. We do not know how far short we are, and it is difficult to know how the legislation will be enacted in practice, but we do know, or appear to know, that the criminal standard of proof will not have to be met for people to be subject to the restrictions on liberty and sanctions in the Bill.
	To broaden my point, I shall briefly go through the scope of some of those sanctions. First, as I have mentioned, they are very wide ranging; we are not talking about a slap on the wrist. They have been called "gangster ASBOs" in tabloid parlance, although the punishment that they carry has a far greater effect than ASBOs themselves. Secondly, the sanctions are too easy as an alternative to prosecution. No one is more in favour than I am of trying to arrest and detain someone involved in crime—drawing the evidence together and putting it before a court with a jury of the person's peers. If such a person can be proved to be guilty, a criminal prosecution should be sought. However, I feel far more uncomfortable with the Bill's underlying assumption: that we essentially know who is breaking the law, but we do not have enough evidence to prove it, so we will make legislation that means that we do not have to come up with such evidence, because we can restrict those people's liberty severely without needing to prove that they have done anything wrong.
	If anything, the opposite to the norm is often the case: the accused person has to demonstrate that they have not done anything wrong, rather than the other way around. A person need never have committed a crime to fall foul of the Bill, and in my party we do not regard that as a sufficient safeguard. The amendment gets to the absolute essence of the legislation, and I am keen not only to speak to it but press it to a Division so that we can try once again to put a criminal standard of proof into the Bill. I urge the Government to consider that point seriously.

James Brokenshire: The Government have sought to clarify their position on the standard of proof to be applied in considering serious crime prevention orders, but the wording of the Bill rather muddies the waters, which is why further clarity is necessary.
	The starting point for the standard of proof that is to be applied in deciding whether a person has been involved in serious crime is the Government's Green Paper, "New powers against organised and financial crime", which was published in July 2006. Paragraph 3.1 states:
	"The courts would be able to impose an order if they believe on the balance of probability that the subject
	Has acted in a way which facilitated or was likely to facilitate the commissioning of serious crime
	That the terms of the order are necessary and proportionate to prevent such harms in future."
	It adds at paragraph 3.4:
	"we would envisage stating on the face of the legislation that to impose an order the courts should be satisfied on the balance of probability that the test is met."
	Clauses 35(2) and 36(2) are incorporated in the Bill precisely to give effect to that stated intention, as they make it clear that the standard of proof to be applied by the High Court and the Crown court is the civil standard of proof—in other words, the balance of probabilities test, or, in simple language, "Was it more likely than not?"
	However, the Government have said that despite the language used in the Bill, things have moved on, and they would expect the House of Lords judgment in the case of McCann, which related to antisocial behaviour orders, to apply to serious crime prevention orders, with the effect that the aforementioned sliding scale would be adopted, incorporating something close to the criminal burden of proof. As the Minister said in Committee,
	"For clarity, let me say that we expect that, with respect to clause 1(1)(a), the standard of proof, as laid out in the McCann judgment, would be virtually identical to the criminal standard of proof."
	He added that
	"as far as the Government are concerned, the judgment in McCann in the House of Lords will inform the practice when it comes to the implementation of serious crime prevention orders." ——[Official Report, Serious Crime Public Bill Committee, 26 June 2007; c. 17-18.]
	So the expectation is that the McCann judgment would apply or that it would "inform the practice". What has not been said is that that will be the practice. That is why I remain of the view that it is important, for the sake of certainty and clarity, to avoid the need for case law, and for interpretation to make this relatively simple issue clear in the Bill by way of the amendments.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that when something like this is not made clear, it means either that the Government have not made up their own mind about what they want or that they do not want it to be clear? In the end, the judgment is based not on the Minister's words but on the words in the Bill. I am worried that we are instigating a procedure that is justifiable only on the basis of the normal criminal measurement of guilt, and pretending that it is almost that although it is actually something much less.

James Brokenshire: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful and effective point. It is extremely strange that this simple and narrow point has not been taken on board in the language of the Bill. As the Minister will see from the amendments, it does not require a huge amount of drafting to clarify the burden of proof required to demonstrate that somebody has been engaged in or involved in serious crime. One must therefore question why there is such reluctance to take that on board and to make the changes that we believe are necessary. We think it appropriate for the situation to be made clear in the Bill, and our amendments Nos. 75, 76, 79 and 80 would give effect to that.
	The Government have said throughout the passage of the Bill that the orders in part 1 are intended to be a preventive civil tool rather than a punishment. Indeed, as we have already discussed, that approach is essential to compliance with the European convention on human rights. There is little doubt, however, that these orders could be extremely wide ranging in nature and scope and be quite draconian. That point has been rehearsed on many previous occasions on Second Reading and in Committee, and I do not intend to delay the House unduly with it. However, given the need to make it clear that the powers should be used in a preventive way, it is important that this House states that the terms of the order should be "necessary and proportionate" in order to prevent the harm of serious crime. This is not about questioning the integrity of the court but about providing a clear statement of purpose which should aid compliance with article 6 of the ECHR.

Vernon Coaker: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman added that rider. He must have suddenly realised, when he said that he hoped that the orders were proportionate, that he was suggesting by implication that the High Court—which is, as he knows, a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998—would be acting in a disproportionate way.

James Brokenshire: By using the word "appropriate", the Minister is suggesting that the High Court would operate in an inappropriate way; otherwise, he would not have put the word in the Bill in the first place. I do not accept his argument. For the purposes of clarity, "necessary and proportionate" sums up very clearly what we believe should be stated in the Bill.
	There remains a genuine concern that the orders may be used in a way that subverts or replaces the existing criminal process. Paragraph 3.2 of the Green Paper notes:
	"As with other disposals available to agencies like the FSA, those deciding whether to prosecute or pursue a civil order will need to decide which disposal is most likely to reduce harm in the long run, while taking due account of the public interest in prosecutions."
	It is therefore envisaged that orders may be sought as an alternative to a prosecution. This is a road down which we must proceed with caution. Civil orders can have a part to play in combating crime, although the way in which the Government have introduced and implemented such orders in the past hardly makes the case well. The Minister has said that only about 30 such orders are intended to be issued annually and that the main target will be the Mr. Bigs, although the Green Paper talks about orders being applied to "individuals on the fringes" and "peripheral players". The point is made that if someone is caught within the ambit of the Bill, clause 4 provides a reverse burden of proof for them to show that they have acted reasonably. The problem is that we do not know how this new power will be applied in practice. Even at this late stage, if the Government are not prepared to accept the amendments, I urge them to provide for a formal mechanism to monitor and renew the orders so that they do not start to be seen as an easy option when a formal criminal prosecution could and should be made to deal with a serious criminal.
	Then there are the crimes that are deemed to be serious in the first place in order for an serious crime prevention order to be considered. There is a need for certainty and clarity, and it is right that the offences regarded as serious should be stated in the Bill rather than left open for further interpretation. It seems astonishing, given the increasing threat, its interrelationship with most other criminal activity, and the level of organisation and technological sophistication that now lies behind it, that computer crime is not considered a serious crime and stated in schedule 1. That appears to be a glaring omission when one considers that fishing for salmon, trout or freshwater fish with prohibited instruments is considered under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 to be a serious offence. That implies that the Government do not regard computer-enabled cybercrime as serious or a priority.
	Such crime hurts more and more people each day, with some surveys suggesting that the public feel more at risk of being the victim of an online crime than they do of any of the other, more high-profile offences. A survey by the Government-sponsored Get Safe Online website asking people of which of a series of crimes they felt most at risk in their everyday lives showed that 21 per cent. identified internet crime—higher than burglary at 16 per cent., mugging at 11 per cent. or car theft at 8 per cent. Online crime is growing fast. According to Get Safe Online, 10 per cent. of internet users were the victims of an online fraud in 2006; the average loss for each individual was £875. It is not just a matter of fraud, but of trojans, viruses and other malware that damage people's computers, as well as misusing them for botnet attacks on others. There is also identity fraud, where individuals' personal details and credit card information are harvested by clandestine means and traded as currency among criminal gangs. Such crime undermines confidence in the use of the internet as a trading platform and its role as an effective means of communicating information.
	The Government are not immune from attack. The tax credits website was shut after fraudsters used security lapses to make bogus claims and steal the identities of 13,000 staff at the Department for Work and Pensions and Network Rail. It is unlikely to reopen before next year. Business has been hit hard. During the past year, 84 per cent. of large businesses are thought to have suffered a malicious security incident. The Metropolitan police estimate the average losses to a large company of an e-crime attack at anywhere between £65,000 and £130,000, rising to £1 million for a large corporate entity. Against such a background, it seems astonishing that computer-enabled crime should not be considered as serious under the Bill.
	On Second Reading, the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing said:
	"This Bill is designed to fill the gaps and lacunae that exist in the law, and its scope does not extend to every crime that, however remotely, could be construed as serious. As I said earlier, the Bill and schedules have been devised precisely to fill what we perceive to be holes in the existing legislation covering serious and organised crime."—[ Official Report, 12 June 2007; Vol. 461, c. 663.]
	I would assert that not including cybercrime in the Bill creates a very big hole, as such crime is serious, organised and poses a significant threat to an increasing number of people, and it should be treated as such. Accordingly, amendments Nos. 81 and 82 would improve the Bill by inserting various offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 into schedule 1 to send a clear message to those intent on causing us harm that my party treats the issue extremely seriously, even if the Government do not. I will listen carefully to how the Minister responds and to his explanation of the Government's position on this issue. It is so serious that if we do not receive appropriate assurances, the matter should be pressed to a Division.
	The changes proposed to the serious crime prevention orders by the Government appear largely technical in nature, and do not address the fundamental issues highlighted by us and by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne), except for Government amendment No. 3, which deals with the appeal process. That amendment effectively clarifies the appeals process through the criminal division of the Court of Appeal and on to the supreme court, and adds language to the provisions. However, the Government have reserved an order-making power under what will be inserted as clause 24(9) and it would be helpful if the Minister clarified the use of the power, the intention behind it and how it would operate and interact with the new appeal process.
	We will listen carefully to the Minister's response, but there are a number of serious issues relating to the clarity, confirmation and scope of serious crime prevention orders. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the significant reservations that have been raised tonight and previously, both inside and outside the House, and insert some quite simple measures to give the clarity and certainty that so many people want.

John Gummer: I shall apply myself to the specific issue of certainty and clarity. When the Minister said that the tests would be virtually the same, it raised an important question. If they are virtually the same, why can they not be the same? It is no more difficult than that. I raise that question particularly because other Ministers have often suggested that they are the same. Similarly, in the discussion we had a few moments ago, all the words that I used are used by those who want greater power than they think the House would give them.
	I want to explain to the Minister why I think that the issue is very serious. It has always been true that in this country the rights and freedoms of the individual have been restricted for the very best of intentions. It has always been for the highest purposes, and it has always been argued that it has to be done because of the threat of this, that or the other. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) found that he had to say that he was not in favour of organised crime before he was allowed to go on to say why the issue he raised was so important. I hope that I do not have to say that, but we are almost put into that position, and we have been again and again. I hope that the Minister understands why it is necessary for him to be very precise. During the past 10 years, there has been a succession of Bills in which the freedom of the individual has come second by a long way in the Government's approach to such issues.
	Again and again, whether about juries, the burden of proof and so on, the Government are on the side of authoritarianism. It is sad for me to find, once again, that I am arguing from a position that must be to the left of the Government's. It is increasingly confusing to people out there that the Government take views that do not start from the presumption that we have to defend people's rights. The right that we are considering is crucial.

Jeremy Browne: Does that not show that divisions in politics nowadays are often not between left and right but between libertarians such as the right hon. Gentleman and me, and authoritarians?

John Gummer: I was trying to use good, old-fashioned language so as not to upset the Under-Secretary too much, but the hon. Gentleman may be right. The Government are the most authoritarian Administration that Britain has ever had. No historian would question that.
	The hon. Member for Taunton hinted at the importance of the right that we are considering. If we and the Under-Secretary are confused, the innocent person who will inevitably be caught by the measure—I have some interest in that problem—will also be confused. At no point in the process will he or she know the protections that they have, the standard of proof that has to be produced and where the measure stands between the civil and criminal standards of proof. At different times, requirements have moved elegantly between the standards, from "virtually the same" to completely different. The required standard is likely to be informed by the decision in the McCann case.
	Having been a Minister for several years, I know some of the language that civil servants pass to Ministers. The phrase, "is likely to inform" is well known to mean, "I am saying nothing whatsoever, but I want you to take it from me." It does not mean anything. "Inform" merely means that somebody, in making a decision, either takes the information into account or knows about it in order not to take it into account. It has no genuine meaning.
	My problem is that the freedom of the individual is too important to rely either on the direct and clear word of a Minister without being in the Bill or—even worse—on the unclear, indirect, confusing and contradictory words of a series of Ministers. I therefore hope that hon. Members, small though the attendance is for such an important subject—all parties should bear the blame for that—will not allow the Under-Secretary to get away with officialese to cover up the fundamental threat that the measure poses to the freedom of the individual.
	The Under-Secretary will get away with it because the people whom we are considering are generally rather nasty. Some are very nasty. We therefore forget that soon, at some point, somebody who is not nasty will be caught up in the provisions. The vagueness means that great injustice can be done. The House is here above all to protect people from injustice. The phraseology that we are considering does not do it. I therefore commend to hon. Members the various amendments, which would at least tighten the measure sufficiently for us to believe that we have done our historic duty in defending individuals against an authoritarian Government, whose authoritarianism is unparalleled since the days of the absolute power of the Crown.

Vernon Coaker: In the time available, I will go through the various amendments. However, I do not propose to go through them in fine detail, not least because, as hon. Members who are present know, we have already debated them in great detail in Committee. They were also debated in equal detail in another place. However, I will first set out the Government's response to the amendments and, secondly, explain the need for the amendments that we tabled.
	One of the key issues that we discussed in some detail during the Bill's passage is the appropriate standard of proof that should apply to the orders. Amendments Nos. 63, 64, 75 and 76 all touch on that. We debated those amendments at length in Committee, but I accept that hon. Members feel that the point is central to the debate. However, I hope that they will forgive me when I say that I have not changed my mind since then, and that the same arguments for not accepting the amendments continue to apply. I am afraid that I must resist them.
	Clause 1 provides an effective and appropriate test to be met by the applicant authority before an order will be granted by the High Court. The test will not be easy to fulfil—and it should not be. It balances the need to protect the rights of the individual with that to protect the public from the harm that some individuals cause. That is the point to which the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) alluded. There is always a debate about balance and where to draw the line. It is a perennial debate, which has gone on for centuries and will doubtless continue for centuries. They are not about punishing past actions, but preventing future engagement in activities that cause harm to society. For that reason, clause 1 sets out a two-part test that must be met before an order is made by the High Court. The first part of the test is a question of fact: has the proposed subject of the order been involved in serious crime in the past? The second part is a matter of judgment for the court: does it have reasonable grounds for believing that the order will prevent future harm caused by serious crime?
	Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 would change the required standard of proof to be discharged in relation to the first limb of the test in clause 1 from the civil standard to the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". The appropriate standard of proof for the orders was debated at great length in Committee, as I have said, and in another place. As can be seen from the  Hansard report, there was some initial confusion over what having the civil standard of proof would mean in practice. I tried to clarify that in Committee, but I will attempt to do so again.
	The civil standard of proof is a flexible one—I shall come to the right hon. Gentleman's point in a moment. In the case of McCann, the House of Lords decided that for antisocial behaviour orders the standard of proof that the court should apply when deciding whether a person had acted in an antisocial manner should be the same as the criminal standard—that is, beyond reasonable doubt. To be clear, Lord Steyn said in that case:
	"Lord Bingham of Cornhill has observed that the heightened civil standard and the criminal standard are"—
	I emphasise the next word—
	"virtually indistinguishable. I do not disagree with any of these views. But in my view pragmatism dictates that the task of the magistrates should be made more straightforward by ruling that they must in all cases under section 1 apply the criminal standard."
	We expect similar principles to be applied in relation to orders. We expect the standard of proof in relation to whether a person has been involved in serious crime to be beyond reasonable doubt. The orders are civil orders, so it is right that the civil standard of proof should apply. As a result, I must resist the amendment.

James Brokenshire: The Minister has said that he expects that that standard will apply. Can he state categorically that it is the Government's intention that that standard should apply? That is an important but distinct point on which we would appreciate some certainty.

Vernon Coaker: To put beyond reasonable doubt what I am saying, the civil court, in making its judgment about such matters, should take into account the case of McCann in the House of Lords. I am not a lawyer, but every time I raise the issue everybody says to me, "Well you ought to read the House of Lords judgment on this." That is what I am told by barristers and lawyers everywhere—"Read the House of Lords judgment. The House of Lords is the highest court in the land. It will inform the decisions that courts make." That is exactly what I am doing. I am saying that the courts of the land—the civil courts in this case—should apply the case of McCann in determining what standard of proof they should apply when considering serious crime prevention orders.
	No doubt much more eminent lawyers than me—since I am not one anyway—use the words "virtually indistinguishable". If those words can be used by the House of Lords, which is the highest court of the land, it seems appropriate that I, too, should use the word "virtually", which is what I have done. If it is the intention of the hon. Member for Taunton to make the applicable standard "beyond reasonable doubt", the House of Lords has already done that, so the amendment is unnecessary and I hope that he will feel able to withdraw it. Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 appear to go to the same end, so I hope that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) will not feel the need to press them.
	On amendments Nos. 65 and 66, let me make clear one important point. The Government are dedicated to ensuring that those who commit serious crimes are quickly detected, effectively brought to trial and punished appropriately. However, amendments Nos. 65 and 66 misunderstand the role that the orders can play. There will not be a direct choice for the Director of Public Prosecutions—or any of the other applicant authorities, for that matter—between pursuing a prosecution, which is punitive, and seeking an order, which is preventive. Orders can be sought independently of, before, alongside or after a prosecution. They will be sought at whatever point in time there is a harm that can be best and most effectively prevented by the imposition of reasonable and proportionate conditions. That does not affect the primacy of prosecution for those who have committed serious crimes. Indeed, one of the reasons we have chosen the applicant authorities that we have, in this part of the Bill, is precisely that they are the best placed to make an assessment of the most appropriate course of action in any particular set of circumstances. For those reasons, I must resist the amendments.
	Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 seek to amend clause 1(3), and the similar provision for orders in the Crown court in clause 19, in order to change the word "appropriate" to the term "necessary and proportionate". The provisions set out the test that the court must apply when deciding on the terms to include in an order. Placing a requirement on the court to act proportionately is unnecessary because it simply reflects a principle by which the court will already abide in making the orders. There is no need to tell the High Court in legislation to be proportionate. As for a requirement for the terms of an order to be necessary, we believe that we have set the standard in clause 1(3), and later in clause 19(5), at the right level. That is because we have struck the right balance in requiring the test to be sufficiently tough to ensure that an order will be proportionate but not so tough that it can never be met. For those reasons, I am afraid that I must resist the amendments.
	The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) has tabled amendments Nos. 67 and 72. They cover subjects that we debated at some length in Committee, and I have not changed my mind since that debate. We have provided a schedule to show the large majority of the offences in relation to which the use of these orders would be appropriate. Also, within the framework of the schedule, we have provided a discretion for the High Court—or, as the case may be, the Crown court—to treat an offence as serious if, in the circumstances of the case before it, which we cannot know or foresee, it considers the offence to be serious enough to be treated as if it were specified in the schedule.
	It is important that we do not fetter the discretion of the courts to adapt to the constant changes around them by looking at the context of an offence and making a fully informed and reasoned decision whether it would be appropriate for that offence to attract an order. Let me give the House an example of why this discretion is necessary. We do not consider it appropriate to include in the schedule offences against the person, such as assault or murder, because they are not suitable for attracting an order in all circumstances. So, I am sure that we can all agree that, when a person assaults another in a simple fight in a pub, these orders would be completely inappropriate. However, when someone has routinely used violence to intimidate and maintain a reign of terror in an area, he might be an appropriate candidate for an order, after serving his sentence, if there is evidence that an order would prevent such crimes from being committed again. It is the circumstances in which these types of offence are committed that determine whether or not an order is appropriate. The person best placed to make that decision will be the judge sitting in the High Court.
	On amendments Nos. 73 and 74, I would like to point out that, in drafting the Bill, we wanted to ensure that any actions of the proposed subject which were reasonable in the circumstances could not be used as the basis for an SCPO. So, for example, there is no doubt that an employee of PC World facilitates serious crime when he sells Mr. X a computer that Mr. X later uses to commit a massive fraud. Mr. X could not commit the crime without that computer. However, to say that the employee should be the subject of an SCPO for those actions would be ludicrous. As a result, we have clause 4(2)(a) and 4(3)(a), which mean that any action that the proposed subject can show is reasonable cannot form the basis for an SCPO. The intent behind the amendments seems to be to force the applicant authority instead to have to show that the actions were unreasonable.

James Brokenshire: In that example of an employee, the Minister has said that it would be up to the employee to show that his actions were reasonable. Does he accept that that would be a somewhat perverse burden in those circumstances, should an SCPO be sought against such an individual?

Vernon Coaker: I do not accept that, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman knows. We have already debated that matter long and hard.
	As I have said, the intent behind the amendments seems to be to force the applicant authority to show that the actions were unreasonable. Whether that is correct depends on one question: who is best placed to know the circumstances surrounding those actions and whether they are reasonable? The answer must surely be the subject. It is important to remember, though, that for this even to be an issue, the applicant authority will already have had to adduce evidence to show that the actions of the proposed subject facilitated, or were likely to facilitate, serious crime. Without having proved the existence of the element of facilitation, the question of whether the actions were reasonable would not arise. So, the proposed subject will not be asked to prove reasonableness in a vacuum; rather, they will need to show that the actions that facilitated the serious crime were reasonable. If I asked my constituents whether it was acceptable to ask someone who has been proven to have facilitated crimes such as drug trafficking or people smuggling to show that their actions were reasonable, I am confident that their answer would be the same as mine. I continue to resist the amendments for those reasons and hope that they will be not be pressed. We have already discussed at some length the civil nature of the orders and I do not propose to go into any further detail now.
	Finally, on the amendments not tabled by the Government, I would like to mention amendments Nos. 81 and 82. They would add the offences contained in sections 1 to 3 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to the list of offences contained in schedule 1. I would like to thank hon. Gentlemen for tabling those amendments, but in consultation with law enforcement agencies and others throughout the development and passage of the Bill, no one has suggested that those offences should be included. However, the Government are firmly committed to tackling computer crime and I can see that there may be merit in including those types of offence in the schedule. I cannot accept the amendments at this time, because I would not wish to do so without consulting the computer industry and other stakeholders. However, that was precisely why we included the order-making power to add to the schedule at a later date. That aspect has been opposed, but it might be helpful in those circumstances. If I make a commitment now to consult fully on the amendments and, subject to the results of that consultation, to seek to amend the schedule by order if it proves to be appropriate, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
	There are a number of other Government amendments, which are relatively minor and technical, and I intend to move them formally later. I invite the House to resist amendment No. 63.

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful to the Minister for his customary courtesy in dealing with all aspects of the Bill. However, I wish to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 274.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 It being after Nine o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [12 June].

Clause 23
	 — 
	Additional right of appeal from High Court

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 14, line 41, before 'not', insert 'to discharge or'.— [Mr. Coaker.]

Clause 24
	 — 
	Appeals from Crown Court to Court of Appeal

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 15, line 18, leave out from beginning to 'lies' and insert
	'Subject to subsection (4), an appeal under subsection (1) or (2)'.
	No. 3, in line 18, at end add—
	'(4) An appeal under subsection (1) or (2) lies without the leave of the Court of Appeal if the judge who made the decision grants a certificate that the decision is fit for appeal under this section.
	(5) Subject to any rules of court made under section 53(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (c. 54) (distribution of business between civil and criminal divisions), the criminal division of the Court of Appeal is the division which is to exercise jurisdiction in relation to an appeal under subsection (1) or (2) from a decision of the Crown Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction in England and Wales under this Part.
	(6) An appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal on an appeal to that court under subsection (1) or (2) may be made to the Supreme Court by any person who was a party to the proceedings before the Court of Appeal.
	(7) An appeal under subsection (6) lies only with the leave of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.
	(8) Such leave must not be granted unless—
	(a) it is certified by the Court of Appeal that a point of law of general public importance is involved in the decision; and
	(b) it appears to the Court of Appeal or (as the case may be) the Supreme Court that the point is one which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court.
	(9) The Secretary of State may for the purposes of this section by order make provision corresponding (subject to any specified modifications) to that made by or under an enactment and relating to—
	(a) appeals to the Court of Appeal under Part 1 of—
	(i) the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c. 19); or
	(ii) the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (c. 47);
	(b) appeals from any decision of the Court of Appeal on appeals falling within paragraph (a); or
	(c) any matter connected with or arising out of appeals falling within paragraph (a) or (b).
	(10) An order under subsection (9) may, in particular, make provision about the payment of costs.
	(11) The power to make an appeal to the Court of Appeal under subsection (1)(a) operates instead of any power for the person who is the subject of the order to make an appeal against a decision of the Crown Court in relation to a serious crime prevention order by virtue of—
	(a) section 9 or 10 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c. 19); or
	(b) section 8 of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (c. 47).
	(12) Section 33(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c. 19) (limitation on appeal from criminal division of the Court of Appeal: England and Wales) does not prevent an appeal to the Supreme Court under subsection (6) above.'.— [Mr. Coaker.]

Clause 27
	 — 
	Powers to wind up companies etc: England and Wales and Scotland

Amendments made: No. 4, in page 16, line 43, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate Minister'.
	No. 5, in line 44, leave out 'he' and insert 'that person'.
	No. 6, in page 17, line 23, at beginning insert—
	'"appropriate Minister" means—
	(a) in relation to a relevant body falling within paragraphs (a) to (c) of the definition of "relevant body" below, the Treasury; and(b) in relation to any other relevant body, the Secretary of State;'.
	No. 7, in line 32, after 'registered;', insert—
	'"partnership" does not include a relevant body;'.
	No. 8, in line 38, after 'society;', insert—
	'(ca) a limited liability partnership;'.— [Mr. Coaker.]

Clause 28
	 — 
	Powers to wind up companies etc: Northern Ireland

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 18, line 28, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate Minister'.
	No. 10, in line 29, leave out 'he' and insert 'that person'.
	No. 84, in page 19, line 5, at beginning insert—
	'"appropriate Minister" means—
	(a) in relation to a relevant body falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of "relevant body" below, the Treasury; and(b) in relation to any other relevant body, the Secretary of State;'.
	No. 12, in line 16, after 'registered;', insert—
	'"partnership" does not include a relevant body;'.
	No. 13, line 22, after 'society;', insert—
	'(ca) a limited liability partnership;'.— [Mr. Coaker.]

Clause 50
	 — 
	Jurisdiction

Amendment made: No. 54, in page 32, line 5, at end insert—
	'( ) Nothing in this section or Schedule 4 restricts the operation of any enactment by virtue of which an act constituting an offence under this Part is triable under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland.'.— [Mr. Coaker.]

Clause 52
	 — 
	Institution of proceedings etc. for an offence under this Part

Amendment made: No. 55, in page 32, line 31, at end insert—
	'( ) No proceedings for an offence under this Part are to be instituted against a person providing information society services who is established in an EEA State other than the United Kingdom unless the derogation condition is satisfied.
	( ) The derogation condition is satisfied where the institution of proceedings—
	(a) is necessary to pursue the public interest objective;
	(b) relates to an information society service that prejudices that objective or presents a serious and grave risk of prejudice to it; and
	(c) is proportionate to that objective.
	( ) The public interest objective is public policy.
	( ) In this section "information society services" has the same meaning as in section 34, and subsection (7) of that section applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section.'.— [Mr. Coaker.]

Clause 81
	 — 
	Powers for prosecutors to appear in cash recovery proceedings

Amendment made: No. 14, in page 47, line 29, leave out
	'the Director of Public Prosecutions,'.— [Mr. Coaker.]

Clause 85
	 — 
	Orders

Amendments made: No. 15, in page 50, line 23, after '33,', insert
	'(Costs in relation to authorised monitors),'.
	No. 16, in line 23, after '7,', insert '24(9),'.— [Mr. Coaker.]

Clause 89
	 — 
	Extent

Amendments made: No. 85, in page 51, line 12, after '(2);', insert—
	'(ba) section (Incidents involving serious violence: powers to stop and search);'.
	No. 17, in line 18, after 'sections)', insert
	'and paragraphs 10, 11 and 18A of Schedule 2'.
	No. 18, in line 23, leave out 'and'.
	No. 19, in line 24, at end insert 'and
	(g) section (Civil recovery management receivers)(1) and (2)'.
	No. 20, in line 27, at end insert—
	'(ba) section 69(4);'.— [Mr. Coaker.]

Clause 90
	 — 
	Commencement

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 52, line 5, after '(4)', insert
	'but, subject to this, including the Schedules'.— [Mr. Coaker.]

Schedule 2
	 — 
	Functions of applicant authorities under Part 1

Amendment made: No. 22, in page 64, line 21, at end insert—
	'18A Sections 75(1) and (2) and 76(1) of, and Schedule 9 to, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47) (duties of public authorities) do not apply to the functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland under this Part.'.— [Mr. Coaker.]

Schedule 6
	 — 
	Minor and consequential amendments: Part 2

Amendments made: No. 56, in page 74, line 25, at end insert—
	'20A In the Criminal Justice Act 1993 (c. 36)—
	(a) section 1(3)(d) (Group B offences);
	(b) section 5(4) (incitement to commit Group A offence).'.
	No. 57, in line 27, at end insert—
	'21A Section 27 of the Antarctic Act 1994 (c. 15) (references to offences under the Act).'.
	No. 58, in line 44, at end insert—
	'27A In the Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996 (c. 29)—
	(a) section 2(1) and (2) (incitement to commit certain sexual acts outside the United Kingdom);
	(b) section 3(8) (extended meaning of offence of incitement to commit a listed sexual offence).'.
	No. 59, in page 75, line 11, at end insert—
	'29A In the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3160 (N.I.24))—
	(a) Article 38(3)(d) (Group B offences);
	(b) Article 42(2) (incitement to commit Group A offence).'.
	No. 60, in page 76, line 5, leave out '153(3)' and insert '153(a)'.
	No. 61, in line 16, leave out paragraph 48 and insert—
	'48 In the Terrorism Act 2006 (c. 11)—
	(a) section 17(2)(f) (commission of offences abroad);
	(b) paragraph 12(b) of Schedule 1 (Convention offences).'.
	No. 62, in page 77, line 20, at end insert—
	 'Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996 (c. 29)
	55A In section 2(3) of the Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996 for "of incitement" substitute "done".'.— [Mr. Coaker.]

Schedule 8
	 — 
	Abolition of Assets Recovery Agency and its Director

Amendments made: No. 23, in page 110, line 2, after 'Part', insert '5 or'.
	No. 24, in line 42, after 'Agency"', insert
	'and for "establish" substitute "provide"'.
	No. 25, in page 112, line 9, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 and insert—
	'(1) Anything which the Director of Public Prosecutions is authorised or required to do under, or in relation to, Part 5 or 8 of this Act may be done by a member of his staff if the member of staff is authorised by the Director (generally or specifically) for that purpose.
	(2) Anything which the Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions or the Director of the Serious Fraud Office is authorised or required to do under, or in relation to, Part 5 or 8 of this Act may be done by a member of his staff if the member of staff is authorised by the Director concerned (generally or specifically) for that purpose.'.
	No. 26, in line 17, after 'Director", insert
	'or a member of his staff'.
	No. 27, in line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 40 and insert—
	'For section 435 (use of information by Director) substitute—
	"435 Use of information by certain Directors
	(1) Information obtained by or on behalf of the Director in connection with the exercise of any of his functions under, or in relation to, Part 5 or 8 may be used by him in connection with his exercise of any of his other functions (whether under, or in relation to, either Part, another Part of this Act or otherwise).
	(2) Information obtained by or on behalf of the Director in connection with the exercise of any of his functions (whether under, or in relation to, this Act or otherwise) which are not functions under, or in relation to, Part 5 or 8 may be used by him in connection with his exercise of any of his functions under, or in relation to, Part 5 or 8.
	(3) This section applies to information obtained before the coming into force of the section as well as to information obtained after the coming into force of the section.
	(4) In this section "the Director" means—
	(a) the Director of Public Prosecutions;
	(b) the Director of the Serious Fraud Office; or
	(c) the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland."
	131A (1) Section 436 (disclosure of information to Director) is amended as follows.
	(2) In the heading for "Director" substitute "certain Directors".
	(3) In subsection (1)—
	(a) for "this section" substitute "subsection (10)"; and
	(b) after "functions" insert "under, or in relation to, Part 5 or 8".
	(4) In subsection (5), omit paragraph (b) and (ga).
	(5) After subsection (9) insert—
	"(10) In this section "the Director" has the same meaning as in section 435."
	131B (1) Section 437 (further disclosure) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2)(a) after "functions" insert "under, or in relation to, Part 5 or 8".
	(3) After subsection (6) insert—
	"(7) In this section "the Director" has the same meaning as in section 435."
	131C (1) Section 438 (disclosure of information by Director) is amended as follows.
	(2) In the heading for "Director" substitute "certain Directors".
	(3) In subsection (1)—
	(a) after "functions", where it first appears, insert "under, or in relation to, Part 5 or 8";
	(b) in paragraph (c) after "functions" insert "under, or in relation to, Part 5 or 8"; and
	(c) after paragraph (f) insert—
	"(fa) the exercise of any functions of SOCA, another Director or the Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions under, or in relation to, Part 5 or 8;".
	(4) Omit subsections (2) to (4).
	(5) After subsection (8) insert—
	"(8A) This section does not affect a power to disclose which exists apart from this section.
	(8B) This section applies to information obtained before the coming into force of subsection (10) as well as to information obtained after the coming into force of that subsection."
	(6) After subsection (9) insert—
	"(10) In this section "the Director" has the same meaning as in section 435."'.
	No. 28, in page 112, line 44, after 'SOCA', insert
	'but only so far as the information is held by it or on its behalf otherwise than in connection with its functions under this Act'.
	No. 29, in page 113, line 5, leave out from '(f)' to 'the exercise' in line 6.
	No. 30, in line 10, after '5', insert 'or 8'.
	No. 31, in line 11, leave out paragraph 134.
	No. 32, in page 114, line 4, leave out paragraph 139.
	No. 33, in line 26, leave out 'Defence' and insert 'Justice'.
	No. 34, in page 116, line 34, leave out '(8)(a)' and insert '(8)'.
	No. 35, in page 118, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line and insert—
	'163 In section 21(1)(b) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (disclosure to prosecuting authority)—
	(a) omit "or" at the end of sub-paragraph (i); and
	(b) after sub-paragraph (ii) insert ", or
	"(iii) in the case of the Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions, to exercise his functions under, or in relation to, Part 5 or 8 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c. 29)."
	163A After section 35(4) of that Act'.
	No. 36, in page 118, line 31, leave out 'including' and insert 'excluding'.
	No. 37, in page 119, line 2, after '5', insert 'or 8'.
	No. 38, in page 120, line 7, after '5', insert 'or 8'.
	No. 39, in line 25, after 'conduct).', insert—
	'(2D) Subsections (1) and (2), so far as relating to disclosure for the purposes of the exercise of any functions of the Lord Advocate under Part 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c. 29) or of the Scottish Ministers under, or in relation to, Part 5 of that Act, do not apply to information obtained by SOCA in connection with the exercise of any of its functions other than its functions under that Act.'.
	No. 40, in line 25, at end insert—
	'170A After section 35(1) of that Act (restrictions on further disclosure) insert—
	"(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to—
	(a) information disclosed by SOCA under section 33 to the Lord Advocate for the purpose of the exercise of any of his functions under Part 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c. 29); or
	(b) information disclosed by SOCA under section 33 to the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of the exercise of any of their functions under, or in relation to, Part 5 of that Act;
	but see instead section 441 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c. 29)."'.
	No. 41, in page 121, line 21, at end insert—
	 'Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (c. 19)
	In Schedule 1 to the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (list of government departments etc.) omit "Assets Recovery Agency".'.— [Mr. Coaker.]

Schedule 12
	 — 
	Revenue and Customs: regulation of investigatory powers

Amendments made: No. 42, in page 130, line 14, after 'Customs', insert
	'who is a senior official within the meaning of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and who is'.
	No. 43, in line 19, after 'Customs', insert
	'who is a senior official within the meaning of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and who is'.
	No. 44, in page 131, line 2, after 'Customs', insert
	'who is a senior official and who is'.
	No. 45, in line 29, after '(4)(l),', insert '—
	(i) '.
	No. 46, in line 31, at end insert ', and
	(ii) after "if he is" insert "a senior official".'.— [Mr. Coaker.]

Schedule 13
	 — 
	Transitional and transitory provisions and savings

Amendment made: No. 47, in page 133, line 34, after '23(2)', insert 'or 24(5)'.— [Mr. Coaker.]

Schedule 14
	 — 
	Repeals and revocations

Amendments made: No. 48, in page 136, line 22, leave out '(8)(a)' and insert '(8)'.
	No. 49, in page 141, line 13, column 2, leave out from beginning to end of line 15 and insert—
	
		
			  'Section 436(5)(b) and (ga). 
			  Section 438(2) to (4).'. 
		
	
	No. 50, in page 141, leave out line 17.
	No. 51, in line 23, at end insert—
	
		
			 'Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (c. 32) In Schedule 5, paragraphs 82 and 83.'. 
		
	
	No. 52, in line 27, column 2, at beginning insert—
	
		
			  'In section 21(1)(b), the word "or" at the end of sub-paragraph (i).'. 
		
	
	No. 53, in line 51, at end insert—
	
		
			 'Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (c. 15) In Schedule 13, paragraph 145. 
			 Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (c. 19) In Schedule 1, the words "Assets Recovery Agency".'. 
		
	
	Title
	 Amendment made: No. 86, in title, line 11, after 'warrants;', insert
	'to extend stop and search powers in connection with incidents involving serious violence;'.— [Mr. Coaker.]
	 Order for Third Reading read.

Tony McNulty: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	This Bill has been debated at some length, both in this House and the other place, which has culminated in us debating on Report a measure that will provide important tools in the fight against serious crime. I now commend the Bill to the House for its Third Reading.
	First and foremost, I wish to thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), for doing all the work on the Bill. I am grateful for that. I also wish to thank Members on both sides of the House for the constructive way in which they have approached the vast majority of the Bill, as we have seen in our deliberations today. I also wish to thank the civil service team that worked diligently and professionally on the Bill, with great spirit and sharp focus.
	Serious crime represents one of the greatest threats to the security of this country and we all know we must work together to combat those who are determined to make their fortune from crimes such as trafficking in drugs, smuggling people or laundering money. We agree on all those issues, but we may disagree on the best way to achieve our ends. That is only right and proper, and the process of detailed scrutiny has given us a Bill that not only will achieve a great deal, but is in far better shape at the end of the parliamentary process than it was at the beginning.
	Among other things the Bill provides law enforcement with an effective new tool to prevent the harm caused by serious crime before it happens: the serious crime prevention order, which is carefully targeted at inhibiting criminal activity, but which is put in place by the courts only where it is reasonable and proportionate to do so. The measure delivers a strengthening of the provisions that allow us to seize the assets of serious criminals, which will help us to deliver the target of doubling confiscation of criminal assets to £250 million per year by 2010, including merging the Assets Recovery Agency into the Serious Organised Crime Agency to give further improvements in efficiency.
	The Bill improves the way in which we are able to use data, across the public and private sectors, to prevent and detect fraud. It addresses the gap in the criminal law identified by the Law Commission concerning incitement. It makes the surveillance powers on which we have just deliberated available to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, and enables them to be used for investigations into serious crime in relation to ex-Customs and Excise matters; they will also be available in relation to investigations into serious crime concerning ex-Inland Revenue matters.

Philip Hollobone: The Minister mentioned incitement. The Bill gets rid of the common law offence of incitement and replaces it with new provisions. There is growing concern across the country, and on both sides of the House, about incitement in lyrics, especially of rap songs, which are particularly offensive to minority groups. Is the Minister's intention, through the Bill, that there should be prosecutions to bring the offensive nature of many rap lyrics under control?

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point. If the activities to which he referred were undertaken in pursuit of serious crime, the answer is yes. I do not demur from the notion that we need to look at other aspects of the broader issue of incitement. The incitement aspects of the Bill merely reflect the Law Commission's findings. The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely fair point and it is worthy of debate and discussion—but not now.
	On Report, we dwelt on the HMRC aspects of surveillance powers, especially intrusive surveillance powers—not least at the behest of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire). However, his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) raised broader issues relating to surveillance powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and to communications data. I have no doubt we shall return to those issues; that debate is still to be had. The hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong in his characterisation of the debate, but no doubt we shall hold it at some point.
	As the Under-Secretary promised, there was a useful discussion on Report on the stop-and-search proposals that originated in the Lords. The Government's proposals put us in a far more reasonable place. The new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Hornchurch was flawed in some ways, but the House has done the country a service in supporting the Government's proposals, while the Government have done the House a service by listening to voices from the Opposition and others. The stop-and-search provisions now offer a position of greater clarity and are better than they were before. I thank the House for that, especially for not dividing on an issue that, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, could be one on which colleagues were tempted to showboat and to play to the gallery for tabloid headlines. I am grateful that did not happen, and the stop-and-search powers are in a better place than before the Bill began its progress.
	In that spirit, I welcome the scrutiny given to the Bill. As a result, and through continued consultation with stakeholders, we have tabled amendments that meet some of the concerns expressed in the House and in another place—not all of them, I freely concede; otherwise, why would we need an Opposition? The amendments improve the way in which the Bill will deliver its objective of tackling serious crime in an effective but balanced way—an endeavour where we are all united against those who commit serious crime, which we all want to drive down.
	This serious matter has been dealt with in Committee and in our debates today in a way that is to the credit of the House, and I commend the Bill to the House.

James Brokenshire: I thank my hon. Friends who served on the Committee and applied the scrutiny and the approach to which the Minister has alluded in seeking to highlight points in the Bill and to raise the concerns that rightly exist in relation to the operation of its provisions. I want to put on record my thanks to the Home Office officials for providing assistance, guidance and information and for responding to the questions that I asked them. I also want to put on record my thanks to the Under-Secretary for his courtesy in dealing with the points raised with him, even though we were unable to reach an agreement or find a resolution in relation to the points that have been highlighted.
	The essence of the debates on the Bill has been whether it will prevent serious crime from occurring. The key part has been the introduction of the serious crime prevention order—in essence, a new hybrid of an ASBO and a control order. However, as I have said today, given the experience of the way in which the Government have used civil remedies, we still have considerable questions about what difference the new order will make in practice. As we know, control orders have not been a full success, with a third of those subject to the apparently stringent conditions of the orders having absconded. ASBOs have been breached in record numbers, with the National Audit Office reporting that 55 per cent. are breached and some areas reporting breach rates as high as 70 per cent.
	Although the public may welcome measures, such as ASBOs, as an indication that something is being done, when examined more closely, that perception turns negative in respect of whether they stop antisocial behaviour, as they were supposed to do. The same questions apply to the serious crime prevention order.
	As Chief Superintendent Neil Wain, a borough commander on the Greater Manchester police force, notes in his recent book, "The ASBO: Wrong Turning, Dead End", not only are ASBOs regularly breached, but they do not appear to control the behaviour of those subject to them. In addition, many of those on ASBOs were persistent criminals, and rather than controlling behaviour, the orders appeared to be more like post-conviction bail conditions, where the objective was breach and imprisonment. Again, that underlines some of the points that have been made this evening and the question whether serious crime prevention orders will be applied in such a way that amounts to a punishment, whatever assurances the Minister may have given most genuinely to the House this evening. That is why we believe strongly that there should be close scrutiny and examination of the practical use to which such orders may be put. But even if that were taken on board and we accept all the provisions on the wording of serious crime prevention orders, there is always the question of how they will be monitored. They will be only as good as the monitoring and enforcement that lies behind them.
	The appalling case of Garry Chester-Nash clearly highlights the possible weaknesses of the Government's arguments if they are not prepared to follow through rigorously any order that is granted under part 1. Chester-Nash had a string of 30 convictions, including for several offences involving knives. He was identified as such a significant risk to the public that he was made subject to one of the most stringent ASBOs imposed, which banned him from all licensed premises in England, from carrying any weapon and from seeking employment that would bring him into contact with women. He was also subject to one of the highest levels of supervision by a multi-agency public protection arrangement. Yet, on his release from prison, when he failed to return to the bail hostel in east London, as he should have done, he travelled to Cornwall instead and stabbed to death 59-year-old Jean Bowditch in a bungled burglary on the bungalow that she was supposed to be cleaning. At his trial last year, he was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommended minimum sentence of 30 years.
	Such appalling cases continue to make me sceptical of the impact of serious crime prevention orders. Whatever may be written into the Bill, whatever the stated intentions and whatever the terms of the orders that may be granted, serious crime will not be prevented without rigorous supervision, monitoring and enforcement. If offenders are that much of a risk, the Government should not contemplate the use of such orders but use the full force of the criminal law and ensure that dangerous prisoners serve the full term of their sentence, rather than being let out early, subject to a serious crime prevention order or other order, however stringent its terms are supposed to be.
	In combating and preventing acts of serious violence and terrorism, we remain committed to the introduction of intercept evidence—a measure that is used successfully in other countries, and we believe that it should be applied here. In the Lords, the noble Lord Lloyd introduced an amendment that would have put such a measure into law, but the provision was removed by the Government, without them giving any assurance on that important subject at the Privy Council review.
	In Committee, the Under-Secretary said:
	"The Government are absolutely committed to a review of the use of intercept. We are also committed to using intercept as evidence if we can find a workable model and the necessary safeguards can be put in place. That is the Government's position. It is clear, and there is no rowing back from it." ——[Official Report, Serious Crime Public Bill Committee, 26 June 2007; c.82.]
	There has been no rowing forward either, as far as we can see, and the Government made no reference to the issue tonight. No indication has been given of the likely timing of the outcome on the review's findings, which we will obviously note with interest. That is an area in which we believe we could make a real difference in preventing crime and terrorism.
	We have made some progress in other areas. We welcome the Government's concessions on a number of points raised by Opposition Members—the addition of firearms offences as serious crimes under the terms of the Bill; confirmation of the seniority of officials in Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs who are able to use specific surveillance powers under the Bill; and the introduction of a code of practice to govern the data-sharing provisions for public authorities in part 3 of the Bill, together with the clarification that powers are to be used only for fraud prevention.
	On that last point, I remain of the view that it would have been more appropriate to give the Information Commissioner a specific right of audit and inspection in the Bill, but I acknowledge that a workable arrangement has been achieved through the code, and I am prepared to accept that. However, there is a bigger debate to be had about the function, powers and authority of the Information Commissioner in the context of his increasingly important role of making sure that data are supplied correctly, and that the interests of the private individual are protected. The House will need to return to that subject in the near future. We also welcome the reform of the law relating to inchoate offences in part 2 of the Bill. The reforms implement the recommendations of the Law Commission in a sensible, appropriate way.
	The Bill finally puts to rest the ill-fated Assets Recovery Agency, which was tasked with recovering assets from criminals using new powers of civil recovery, as well as powers of criminal confiscation and taxation. However, as the Public Accounts Committee recently reported, by December 2006 the agency had recovered assets of only £23 million; that is against an expenditure of £65 million. The Committee noted that
	"The Agency was set up, however, with insufficient preparatory work. There was no business case setting out the expectations for the Agency, resulting in unachievable delivery aims."
	Both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee made recommendations, arising from the structural and operational failures of the Assets Recovery Agency, which led to the proposed transfer of its operations to the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the National Policing Improvement Agency under the Bill. It is essential that the recommendations be implemented by the successor organisations, and that the weaknesses are not merely transferred to the new bodies. It is important that assurances on the disclosure of information and on the performance of the assets recovery functions continue to be published in a format that allows comparison with the previous activities of the Assets Recovery Agency. We will be monitoring closely to ensure that a change in the structure leads to a step-change in performance.
	The Bill was a lost opportunity to ensure that stop and search powers were granted to police sergeants, as we today argued that they should be. That would offer the public greater protection from violent crime, and underline the importance of decisions made within communities affected by gun and knife crime. However, we accept that the amendments proposed by the Government on stop and search have some merit, although we question the extent of their impact. We will watch with interest to see whether stop and search turns out to be another area in which the Government subsequently decide to adopt Conservative thinking and make an important change to prevent crimes of serious violence.
	Despite our reservations about the serious crime prevention order, and the reservations of the Law Society, Liberty and others about whether the measure will be an effective, or indeed appropriate, remedy for reducing the harm caused by serious crime, we share the Government's desire to bear down on serious organised crime, and we will not oppose the Bill's Third Reading tonight. However, we will monitor closely whether the powers are applied in a way that is not intended by the House, to discover whether the Bill will simply join the long list of previous pieces of Home Office legislation introduced by the Government, promising much but delivering virtually nothing.

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful for a final opportunity to speak on the Bill. As is customary, I shall begin by thanking the many people involved in its inception. In the other place, where the Bill kicked off, my noble Friends Lords Dholakia, Goodhart, Burnett and Livsey all made substantial contributions to its progress. There were many Committee sittings, and the Conservatives even changed their spokesman. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who got the ball rolling, and to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) who spoke wisely and at length this evening. I thank the Under-Secretary not only for the way in which he has approached the substance of the Bill but for his general courtesy and willingness to engage with Opposition Members, as well as his readiness to make officials available to add clarity to our conversations. He has made a genuine effort, and other Ministers could learn from his etiquette and decency.
	The Bill has some merits. Like many Bills emanating from the Department, it is not an unequivocally good or bad Bill. There are things on which we agreed in Committee, and things on which we agreed this evening—most importantly, on stop-and-search powers. They are not the whole solution, as the Minister rightly said, but they are an important weapon against violent crime, as long as they are used with intelligence and discretion by the police. We regret that Lord Lloyd's amendment on intercept evidence was struck out by the Government without any willingness on their part to replace it with an amendment more to their liking. The crux of the Bill, on which we voted half an hour ago—regrettably, we lost that vote—is part 1, and I shall briefly detain the House by summing up its seven inherent flaws.
	First, the sanctions in the Bill are unrestricted in their scope. There are some restrictions, but they are not exhaustive. We must remember that we are talking about serious sanctions—virtually everything short of imprisoning the individual concerned—such as restrictions on internal travel in the United Kingdom, on the buildings they can visit, and on the places where they can work, so their day-to-day business may be severely curtailed. Those sanctions can last up to five years—we tried to reduce that period in Committee, but we failed—but that period is not a maximum. It can be extended indefinitely, so it is within the scope of the Bill for extremely draconian restrictions to be placed on someone's liberties, and for those restrictions to last their lifetime, without their having an opportunity to escape them, even if they are not convicted of a criminal offence. If they breach those restrictions, they could go to prison, despite their not having been convicted of a criminal offence.
	Secondly, serious crime prevention orders are too easy an alternative to prosecution. The underlying assumption in the mind of Ministers is that the enforcement agencies know who the perpetrators of many crimes are, but cannot find enough evidence to prosecute them. They have therefore decided to find a different way of penalising them, and we fear that it will be regarded as alternative to prosecution, although it is often in the public interest to pursue a prosecution. Thirdly, there is no definition in the Bill of what constitutes a serious offence. There is a list of serious offences, some of which were subject to ridicule throughout our debates. I have yet to find an official who can defend the serious offences relating to salmon fishing. I still have not heard a satisfactory explanation from the Minister about why he regards salmon fishing as such an appalling offence. I do not wish to diminish the significance of the offence for any salmon fishermen who may be following our deliberations, but most of my constituents would not put that in the same category as the other items on the list. Moreover, further items can be added, so it is not a definitive list.
	Fourthly, a person need never have committed a crime in order to be subject to the punishments outlined in the Bill. Restrictions could legitimately be placed on a person who had been convicted of an offence, gone to prison, left prison and re-entered a criminal world—perhaps the same one that got them into prison in the first place—but there is a distinction between such a person and someone who is restricted but has not committed a criminal offence.
	Fifthly, there is no requirement for a person even to be aware that their actions could have facilitated a crime. In this respect, there is a lack of clarity in the Bill. The Minister constantly refers to the Mr. Bigs of the criminal underworld, whose efforts will be severely restricted by the Bill, but every time we ask for individual examples, they seem to come down to taxi companies run by inoffensive, or potentially offensive, small-time middle men and women in the criminal world, who certainly are not in the category of the 30 most prominent Mr. Bigs in Britain's underworld. A Bill that will almost certainly soon become an Act is not clear on that point.
	Sixthly, restrictions can be placed on a person who is not the subject of an order. Finally, a person is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. That will offend many in the House who are concerned that the burden of proof will be on the recipient of the serious crime prevention order, rather than on those who wish to penalise that person.
	We have made our views known throughout the passage of the Bill, including this evening. There is no point in our voting on Third Reading, as our views are clear to everybody who has followed the progress of our deliberations. The Government have been too cavalier with civil liberties, during the passage of the Bill and more generally. It was striking that this evening only one non-ministerial Labour MP chose to speak during the debate. Trial by jury and hundreds of years of slowly building up the liberties of the individual citizen should not be discarded lightly. The divide in British politics is less between left and right than between those of a libertarian disposition and those of an authoritarian disposition. In that debate, my party is in the former camp. I fear that the Government are far too often in the latter camp, and we will have to revisit these debates many more times in the future.

Vernon Coaker: It has come as some surprise not only to me but to all hon. Members—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Vernon Coaker: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Precisely. It is not usual to make a complete reply to a debate on Third Reading, but if the Minister wants to make the odd observation, that will be in order.

Vernon Coaker: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House, I shall make a few remarks. I reciprocate the warm appreciation that I received from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing who, along with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other Home Office Ministers, has assisted and advised me. I also thank the hon. Members for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) and for Taunton (Mr. Browne) for their kind words. Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to say thank you to everyone.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

European Communities

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Republic of Tajikistan) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved. —[Mr. Nicholas Brown.]
	 Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Tuesday 23rd October, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Edward Leigh relating to Public Accounts not later than Ten o'clock or three hours after their commencement, whichever is the later; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.
	 Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Thursday 25th October, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of the Motions in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to:-
	(a) Modernisation of the House of Commons;
	(b) Modernisation of the House of Commons (Changes to Standing Orders);
	(c) Procedure;
	(d) Procedure (Changes to Standing Orders); and
	(e) European Standing Committees (Temporary Nomination)
	not later than Five o'clock; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply. —[Mr. Nicholas Brown.]

Sittings of the House

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That—
	(1) at the sittings on Monday 29th and Tuesday 30th October, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords has been received and any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported;
	(2) at the sitting on Tuesday 30th October, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until a Message has been received from the Lords Commissioners; and
	(3) on Tuesday 30th October, there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall.— [ Mr.  Nicholas Brown .]

Philip Hollobone: I want to object to motion 6 on the Order Paper, because it has not been properly explained to the House why we should lose up to four and a half hours of parliamentary airtime in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 30 October. It may well be known to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at what time Her Majesty may wish to prorogue her Parliament, but it is certainly not known to me, and I suggest that it is not known to other hon. Members.
	It seems to be a regular feature of the last days of any parliamentary Session that the Government introduce a motion to suspend all sittings in Westminster Hall on the last day of operations. I am sure that I am not alone in regarding the debates that take place in Westminster Hall as an extremely important part of the parliamentary process. Typically, Tuesday sittings in Westminster Hall start at 9.30 am and run through until 2 pm, and, typically, there are two one-and-a-half-hour debates and then a series of half-hour debates on topics of interest to Members of Parliament who have applied to Mr. Speaker to debate those topics. I have been fortunate enough to take advantage of that procedure and have used valuable parliamentary airtime as a result, with the appropriate Minister in attendance to listen to my concerns as a constituency Member of Parliament and to respond in due course.

Peter Bone: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is difficult to obtain a slot to raise an important constituency issue? Quite often—it has happened this week—I am unlucky in the ballot, so reducing the number of days for debate is rather unfortunate.

Philip Hollobone: I concur with my hon. Friend, who has taken advantage of the debating time available in Westminster Hall. He is assiduous in his applications to secure such debates, and sadly, like most of us, he is often unsuccessful. However, the fact that he is a persistent applier for such debates means that he has secured a number of important debates in order to represent the concerns of his constituents. Back Benchers will be denied that opportunity on Tuesday 30 October if motion 6 on the Order Paper is agreed.
	Motion 6 does not sit at all comfortably with motion 5 on the Order Paper, which relates to the business of the House. This House has just agreed that we will discuss on Thursday 25 October a number of important motions, the main aim of which is to increase opportunities for Back Benchers to influence how the House operates. However, motion 6 on the Order Paper seeks to delete four and a half hours of parliamentary airtime, which is vital to Back Benchers for putting the interests of their constituents.
	I do not know the proposed timing of prorogation on Tuesday 30 October. However, I know that the parliamentary agenda, which we all follow, states under the heading "Business for the period ending on Tuesday 30th October":
	"Includes the business announced by the Leader of the House (which may be changed up to the rising of the House on the day before it is to be taken and is therefore provisional)."
	I understand that the agenda is provisional, but it gives the impression that on Tuesday 30 October the first item of business will be questions to the Secretary of State for Health. Health questions are an important parliamentary opportunity for my constituents, whom I do my best to represent, and I hope that they take place on that date.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. Is he aware that yet again the parliamentary calendar has been shortened, so that we are sitting for fewer days than before? How could it be right for a question time to be cut? If, however, there is to be a question time, there will obviously be time for a Westminster Hall debate.

Philip Hollobone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that incisive observation. Given the provisional agenda, my understanding is that on Tuesday 30 October the House will meet, as normal, at 2.30 pm, and that the first item of business will be questions to the Secretary of State for Health. I, for one, look forward to the opportunity to ask him questions about health issues in Kettering, not least because there is a lot of concern there about the large number of hospital-acquired infections. I was unfortunate in not being able to put such points to the Secretary of State on his statement last week, owing to the great interest in the subject in the Chamber.
	If I am right and the House is due to meet on Tuesday 30 October, presumably the Westminster Hall sittings, which typically start on Tuesdays at 9.30 am and end at 2 pm, will also take place—four and a half hours of valuable parliamentary airtime. Yet motion 6(3) on the Order Paper cancels all that. That is not the first time; increasingly, the Government seek to erase Westminster Hall business at the end of every Session.
	I know that you, Mr. Speaker, attach great importance to Westminster Hall debates because it is only with your gracious permission that we can have them in the first place. I am grateful for the number of opportunities that you have given me, as the Member for Kettering, to raise topics of great importance to my constituents—not least this week, when you gave me permission for a debate on the control of illegal immigrants; I look forward to holding the Minister for Borders and Immigration to account for recent incidents in Northamptonshire in respect of that issue.

David Winnick: I do not necessarily oppose what the hon. Gentleman says, and I hope that the time will come when the Opposition will join in consideration of the whole question of sittings—not least, the long, unnecessary and unjustified summer recess. However, does he not accept that until the change of Government in 1997 there were no Westminster Hall debates? They arose from the Modernisation Committee, set up in 1997, after it considered ways in which Back Benchers could have more time to debate issues. The whole Westminster Hall structure came about under a Labour Government.

Philip Hollobone: I am most grateful for that intervention. I am a great believer in giving credit where credit is due, and that reform was overdue and welcome. Like me, the hon. Gentleman has taken advantage of the opportunities that Westminster Hall presents. I also share his concern about the very long summer recess that the House of Commons undergoes. Like him, I have supported motions proposing that this House come back during September to discuss items of concern. These two matters are related. Those of us who want a shorter summer recess want to have more parliamentary airtime to put across the concerns of our constituents to the Ministers who are responsible for these matters. Yet we have on the Order Paper a Government motion to deprive this House of four and half hours of valuable parliamentary airtime. I object to that.
	I understand that on a Tuesday the other place meets at 2.30 pm—the same time as this Chamber. It would be far more sensible if both Houses met at 2.30 pm on Tuesday 30 October, followed in this place by an hour's questions to the Department of Health, by which time the other House could have decided the timetable for Prorogation. If, at that point, there were no further Lords messages to be received in this Chamber, that would be a sensible time to prorogue. Importantly, in relation to paragraph (3) of the motion, it would also allow for a full Tuesday morning's activity in Westminster Hall.

Peter Bone: In my constituency, there is a huge problem with people going blind because of age-related macular degeneration. I will submit a question for that day, and I will also apply, as I have been doing, for a Westminster Hall debate, but if this motion goes through I will lose in both cases.

Philip Hollobone: My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
	The Government probably know when they want to prorogue, or to advise Her Majesty on when prorogation should take place, but they are not telling us. The motion is not nearly as good as it could be, and they should go away and think about it again. They could then come back tomorrow with a far more sensibly drafted version that not only secured parliamentary airtime in Westminster Hall and confirmed that there will be questions to the Secretary of State for Health, but gave an indication to this Chamber about the timing of any Prorogation, if it is to be on Tuesday 30 October.
	The Government have made no provision at all for the debates in Westminster Hall that should take place in the new parliamentary Session. They have spent a great deal of time ensuring that carry-over motions on important Bills are put before the House. For example, last week we had a very important carry-over motion on the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. I had the privilege of serving on that Public Bill Committee, and I am very much looking forward to doing so in the next parliamentary Session. However, there is no carry-over provision with regard to debates in Westminster Hall. When we come back on Tuesday 6 November for the opening of the new Session, surely it would be sensible, in order to secure Back Benchers' rights, to ensure that provision can be made in this Session for applications for Westminster Hall debates on the first Wednesday—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is pushing the boat out a bit too far in relation to these matters. This motion is very narrow.

Philip Hollobone: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, which I appreciate. I shall conclude with these remarks. I know that you attach a great deal of importance to Westminster Hall, Mr. Speaker, as do I and other hon. Members. I simply say to the Government that it is not appropriate to curtail the valuable parliamentary airtime that Back Benchers enjoy by cutting Westminster Hall debates on the last day of every Session.

Peter Bone: I will not detain the House long, but this is an important issue. The power of the Executive is extremely strong. As parliamentarians we should try to take that power from the Executive and give it back to Members of this House. It is exceptionally unfortunate when debates that are designed for Members to raise issues are stopped. I cannot see the reason for it. There does not seem to be any possible reason why we could not have those debates. Unfortunately, I doubt that we will learn it tonight, but I do not think that the motion is a particularly good one.
	 Question put and agreed to.

COMMITTEES

Education and Skills

Ordered,
	That Mr Rob Wilson be discharged from the Education and Skills Committee and Mr Graham Stuart be added.  ——[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection . ]

Health

Ordered,
	That Mr David Amess be discharged from the Health Committee and Mr Robert Syms be added. ——[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection .]

Home Affairs

Ordered,
	That Mr. Richard Benyon be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and David T. C. Davies be added. ——[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Work and Pensions

Ordered,
	That Justine Greening be discharged from the Work and Pensions Committee and Mr Oliver Heald be added.  ——[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

ALDERMAN BLAXILL SCHOOL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Watts.]

Bob Russell: The issue of secondary education in Colchester has widened since I secured this debate, because on Friday Essex county council published proposals to shut not only Alderman Blaxill school but a second school, the Thomas Lord Audley school and language college. The county wants to build a 1,200 place academy on the site of the latter. That will result in a net reduction of 500 secondary school places in Colchester—one of the fastest growing towns in Britain—and in future years will cause a knock-on effect at all the other secondary schools as parents scramble for a place.
	Parental choice is already a myth for hundreds of parents. The loss of 500 places, if Alderman Blaxill and Thomas Lord Audley close, will make choice of school even more of a lottery. The closure of Alderman Blaxill school will be contrary to the Government's sustainable communities objectives and their programme of safe routes to school, and it will be a victory for the right-wing Tory county council based 30 miles away in Chelmsford, only one of whose members represents a county division in Colchester—and he used to run his own private school. The town is otherwise represented by three Liberal Democrat and two Labour county councillors. Sadly, Colchester has to suffer the consequences of being ruled by Tories who do not live there. Surely the Minister does not want to jump into the same bed as the county Conservatives.
	There is massive opposition in the Shrub End area to the closure of Alderman Blaxill school, which has been at the heart of the local community since it opened just over 50 years ago. It is a much loved community school. Petitions have already attracted more than 2,500 signatures. Special appreciation goes to the Colchester  Gazette, the town's daily newspaper, which has launched a campaign to save the school—repeating what it did 15 years ago when the county Tories last tried to shut the school but were thwarted by people power.
	The  Gazette campaign, which is regularly covered in the newspaper, has its own distinctive logo with the words, "Alderman Blaxill Must Stay Open—Save Our School". Indeed, tonight's  Gazette leads on that very issue. I call on the Minister tonight to give his backing to the local community and not to the right-wing Tories at county hall, who have no interest in Colchester other than asset stripping and reducing services, as witnessed already this year by the decision to close the town's adult community education college at Grey Friars, which is to be sold, and by the closure of the Colchester record office, with the transfer of the historic records of Britain's oldest recorded town to Chelmsford.
	There is a widely held belief in Colchester that the county Tories want to sell the Alderman Blaxill school site, with its extensive playing fields, for residential development. I have little doubt that the Minister's briefing from his officials—ably assisted, I am sure, by officials from Essex county council—will paint a bleak picture of Alderman Blaxill school. However, I suspect that the county has been quiet about its role in how the school got into its current position. To put it simply, Essex county council is culpable. It is largely responsible for what has happened, and now it is seeking to shift the blame on to the school, and looking to the Government to help it out of the situation that it helped create by shutting Alderman Blaxill, leaving it with a prime site to sell.
	As I have already stated, we are now talking about the closure of two secondary schools—Alderman Blaxill at Shrub End and Thomas Lord Audley on the Monkwick estate. The county wants to build a huge academy on the Monkwick site, which, presumably, it expects pupils from Shrub End to attend. But will they? I shall say more about the proposed academy later.
	For the moment, let me deal with Alderman Blaxill school. It is named after a highly respected Colchester business man and educationist, who served the town with great distinction for most of the first half of the 20th century; a former mayor who was granted the freedom of the borough, he lived in Colchester. In those days, councillors and officers lived in the community that they sought to represent and serve. Unfortunately, education today is in the hands of Essex county council. I believe that, had Colchester borough council been a unitary authority, the proposal to shut Alderman Blaxill school would not have been made; nor would the town have lost its record office and adult community education college. There is no way that a unitary borough council would have allowed Alderman Blaxill school to get into the position that the county Tories—by deliberate actions and neglect—have permitted. That is a further reason for calling on the Minister not to support the Tory-controlled county council's closure proposal for Alderman Blaxill and Thomas Lord Audley schools.
	Until about three years ago, none of the town's six comprehensive schools was in special measures. I could proudly claim that all of them—we also have two selective schools, plus a Catholic college—were good schools. I visit them all, and speak well of every one. However, first one, then two and finally three of the schools were placed in special measures. Only six secondary schools in the whole of Essex were in such a position. So how was it that, almost overnight, half the town's comprehensives found themselves in special measures?
	Essex education authority bears collective responsibility for that. There has been a failure to monitor what was going on and neglect to the point where the charge of dereliction of duty must be levelled at the education authority and its political rulers. In the case of Alderman Blaxill school, there has been what I can describe only as a deliberate attempt to undermine it so that the county could proceed with its dastardly proposals to close it—as it had tried to do in the past.
	In a feature article in the  Gazette on 27 June this year, a week after the newspaper broke the news that Essex county council planned to shut Alderman Blaxill, chief reporter Tom Weatherill wrote:
	"There is something going wrong somewhere with education in Colchester—and no-one seems prepared to say what it is."
	I urge the Minister to hold an inquiry into the competence of Essex education authority and its politically motivated actions involving Colchester's secondary schools. Perhaps the education authority should be put in special measures.
	I also urge the Minister to step in and halt the closure proposals. At a stroke, that would lift the blight on Alderman Blaxill school—a shadow that discourages some parents from sending their children to a school whose future is in doubt. Such a positive move by the Minister will give parents the confidence once again to choose Alderman Blaxill school, and give the school the encouragement to continue its programme under its new head, who has been in post for little more than a year, to restore its good name and reputation, which it had enjoyed for the best part of five decades.
	Indeed, Ofsted has praised the new head, Ms Faith Spinlove, who was appointed in March 2006, for identifying the school's problems and introducing
	"innovative ways to bring about improvement."
	That positive endorsement from Ofsted needs to be matched by ministerial support for the school and not the destructive behaviour of Essex education authority. Incidentally, at a packed public meeting for parents, as reported in the  Gazette on 2 July, the head
	"was handed a resounding vote of confidence"
	by the 100 people who attended. She had set out the "tough reforms" that she said she had embarked on to turn the school around.
	On 28 September,  Gazette editor Irene Kettle reported that support for the school was "overwhelming", adding:
	"We think this school, and the unique support it offers to Army families and children with special needs, should stay open for the people of Colchester."
	Alderman Blaxill is the smallest of Colchester's secondary schools. That should be cherished, not destroyed. Not every child is happy in a large school. Another special characteristic is that between a fifth and a quarter of Alderman Blaxill's pupils are children who have a father—and sometimes a mother—serving in Her Majesty's armed forces and based at the Colchester garrison. The school has years of experience in helping such youngsters, which I witnessed for myself when just about every soldier from the garrison was deployed in the Iraq war. A further special characteristic is that Alderman Blaxill has the only child dyslexia unit in the north of the county, which was opened by five-times Olympic gold medal winner Sir Steve Redgrave.
	There is one characteristic, however, for which Essex education authority should hang its collective head in shame. It has deliberately used Alderman Blaxill school as a dumping ground for dysfunctional pupils whom Colchester's other secondary schools do not want.  Gazette features editor Iris Clapp observed in an article on 5 July:
	"Alderman Blaxill School doesn't only teach children from Shrub End and Colchester Garrison. It provides desk space for all those teenagers expelled from the town's other secondary schools, has a very high proportion of special needs children, and crucially, houses the only child dyslexia unit in North Essex."
	With the lack of support from the education authority, is it any wonder that the school has had more than its share of difficulties, which has led to the criticisms from Ofsted?
	Incidentally, the importance of Alderman Blaxill school in the welfare and education of children of Colchester-based soldiers was highlighted in a report by the Select Committee on Defence published on 6 September last year. Indeed, the Committee took the extremely rare step of coming to Colchester, on 24 April 2006, for a formal evidence session at the school, interviewing teachers, service families and service children. In a spirit of joined-up government, perhaps the Minister will invite his officials to read the Committee's report, the 11th of the 2005-06 Session. I would also direct him to an Adjournment debate that I secured on 25 October 1999, in which I highlighted the special pressures facing schools with a large number of children from service families.
	For how long has Essex education authority been secretly plotting to close Alderman Blaxill school this time around? Has that been done with the knowledge and connivance of county councillors? It is obvious that discussions long pre-dated the Ofsted inspection in May, but I have not been able to establish when they started or, most crucially, at what point it was decided that the closure of Alderman Blaxill should be pursued and who was involved. Can the Minister throw any light on the sequence of events? Either officials of Essex education authority had deliberated without the knowledge of councillors or councillors were part of the discussions and had known for some time. If they did know, they kept that secret from residents of Shrub End before this May's crucial borough elections in what is Colchester's most marginal three-way ward, for fear that it would be electorally damaging to the Conservatives in fighting the defending Labour councillor, who lost his seat.
	About five years ago, the popular head of Alderman Blaxill school left to take up an appointment at a bigger school elsewhere in Britain. Long-serving governors tell me that, despite their objections, they were forced by the county education authority to appoint a head in whom they had little confidence. He did not last long, and quit in 2005 following undisclosed allegations. Former chairman of the governors, Mr. Ray Norris, was reported by the  Gazette as saying that the county had failed to support Colchester schools. In the issue of 27 June, he referred to what he described as the county's
	"poor performance and lack of investment in Colchester schools."
	He added:
	"We feel that the County Council has invested in education in South Essex and neglected Colchester."
	Some months ago, the head of Thomas Lord Audley school left following a critical Ofsted report. That clearly helped the county with its intentions to close both schools—in effect, to merge them and create a new school, albeit one outside the traditional local education system, namely a so-called academy on the TLA site.
	This morning, I visited Thomas Lord Audley school, which is well on the way to coming out of special measures. A few weeks ago, I attended a special evening for potential year 7 pupils at Alderman Blaxill school.
	 It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Blizzard.]

Bob Russell: While it is true that the number of year 7 pupils in Colchester has fallen in recent times, it was not that many years ago that parents were beating a path to my door because there were seemingly no vacancies at the town's secondary schools. Parental choice was something of a myth for hundreds of parents. History tells me that the numbers will rise again in due course—within the next few years, in fact. Therefore, we should not be talking about reducing the overall number of secondary school places, particularly in a town where there is a huge amount of house building going on.
	In his briefing, has the Minister been told that about 2,500 dwellings—yes, 2,500 homes—are to be built on the site of the former Colchester garrison? All of them fall within the traditional catchment areas of Alderman Blaxill and Thomas Lord Audley schools. Does anyone believe that such a huge housing development will not have children of secondary school age? On Friday—the very day on which the schools broke up for half term, which is perhaps why that day was chosen in an attempt to bury bad news—Essex county council published its proposals for an academy on the TLA site to accommodate 1,200 pupils. We can safely assume that the county's so-called consultation will be a sham, and nothing more than a box-ticking exercise. It is deaf to reason and blind to the obvious. Our only hope is that the Government will realise that the county's costly plans do not add up.
	The current combined authorised admission number for TLA and Blaxill is 1,700, so the academy proposal would result in a reduction of 500 places in south Colchester, totally ignoring the 2,500 new houses being built at the former garrison. I acknowledge that the current number of pupils is well below the published authorised figure, but the number of pupils currently in year 11 at the two schools totals 300, indicating that, even before the population growth resulting from new housing at the former garrison, south Colchester requires a minimum of 1,500 places in the age group 11 to 16—school years 7 to 11. Evidence that I obtained this morning shows, from the number of children born in recent years, that, by 2015, the number seeking year 7 places will match the number currently in year 11 at Colchester's secondary schools. That is before we take into account the number of children who will move into Colchester to live in the thousands of new dwellings that are being built.
	Can we trust Essex education authority when it comes to forecasts? No, we cannot. Just look at the monumental £24 million blunder of the Bishop Park school at Clacton. It opened only five years ago, yet it is now under threat of closure because it has too few pupils. I suggest that the education authority is so traumatised by its incompetence, following its overestimate of the projected numbers at Clacton, that it is now deliberately underestimating the numbers in Colchester for fear of repeating the financial consequences of what happened at Bishop Park.
	In relation to value for money, I suggest that, instead of spending some £27 million on a new academy—the average cost according to the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee inquiry into the academies programme—it would cost the public purse considerably less if money were invested in upgrading both Alderman Blaxill and Thomas Lord Audley. This would maintain each as a community-based school serving its distinctive local community.
	Let me now deal with the consequences of shutting Alderman Blaxill School and requiring youngsters to travel from Shrub End to Monkwick. Although they are in neighbouring wards, there is no community of interest between the two; indeed, they are separated by the largest super-garrison in Britain. Building work on the second phase is currently taking place; it is a massive complex. There is only one road linking Shrub End and Monkwick. For much of its distance, it is a narrow country road, and an extremely busy one at that, with large stretches without pavements and street lights. There have been several fatalities. It is not a safe route to school. There is no bus route linking Shrub End with Monkwick. Roads on the St. Michael's and Montgomery Army estates are not public thoroughfares: they are maintained by the Ministry of Defence and can be closed whenever required for security reasons. Access by the civilian population is not encouraged. It has been suggested that transport will be provided for children from Shrub End to Monkwick. Will the Minister confirm that free transport is available only for those who live more than three miles from the school?
	Yesterday, I drove from the front gate of Alderman Blaxill school in Paxman avenue to Thomas Lord Audley school. The distance to the entrance into the school playing field, off Monkwick Avenue, is precisely three miles. The main entrance, however, is a quarter of a mile further away in School road—a narrow cul-de-sac that the TLA shares with Monkwick infant school, Monkwick junior school, Berechurch community sports and youth centre, and the Ormiston centre, a sports complex. It is already a traffic nightmare. For Shrub End parents, I can foresee lots of disputes over who is entitled to free travel and who will have to pay. At least two thirds of pupils from Shrub End will not be entitled to free transport, thus adding a financial burden on families, many of them on low incomes.
	A second issue is that of the additional traffic that would be drawn into the Monkwick estate to reach the greatly enlarged education establishment, using narrow residential roads not built for such heavy traffic. That is not something that local residents will welcome. What is guaranteed is increased traffic chaos and more road safety dangers for everybody. Incidentally, today has the been the first day of half term and the roads in Colchester were free of traffic. I suggest that the education authority and the highways authority engage in some joined-up thinking, as much of the traffic congestion in the mornings is caused by school-related traffic.
	It is worth observing how differently Essex education authority has treated the governing bodies of the three secondary schools put into special measures. Those at Sir Charles Lucas and Thomas Lord Audley were allowed to remain in place, and given time and encouragement to turn their schools around. The governing body at Alderman Blaxill, however, has been sacked. Why? Governors had drawn up an action plan to tackle the problems and, as already mentioned, Ofsted has praised the new head for the steps that she has already put in place. The sacking, I submit, is pure spite by the county Tories who resent the determination of the governors to make a success of Alderman Blaxill school.
	I discovered today that the interim executive board has already met twice in secret. Nobody knows who sits on the board; the chairman is a mystery man; all parent governors have been removed. What I can say is that, even though there is unlikely to be any confidence in a governing body that has been imposed on the school, the campaign to save Alderman Blaxill school will not be silenced by such an anti-democratic manoeuvre. There are weekly meetings of the parents and community forum, which is made up of people determined to resist the school's closure. Last month, they organised a successful fun day. They have unveiled a "tree of hope" in a town centre shop, launched by the town crier. Will the Minister promise that he will, at the very least, insist that the democratically elected parent governors should be restored to the governing body?
	Let me now turn to the prospect of an academy, as disclosed officially for the first time by Essex county council last Friday. What the public announcement does not mention is the prospect that the academy may be sponsored by the Chelmsford diocese of the Church of England. Several weeks ago, in conversation, a clergyman based at Chelmsford casually told me that the diocese had hopes of taking over the then rumoured academy in Colchester. I decided to check that out. Confirmation of such a possibility has been given to me by the chief executive of Essex county council. Although I was assured that
	"no specific agreements have been made in respect to the Diocese and Essex County Council sponsoring an academy in Colchester",
	the chief executive confirmed that such a possibility in Essex had been discussed several months ago.
	Although I have a Christian upbringing, I am not an Anglican, but come from good nonconformist stock. I have serious misgivings about two of Colchester's local secondary schools being shut down and their replacement academy handed over to the Chelmsford diocese. If the diocese wants to have a secondary school to promote Anglican teachings then let it, like the Brentwood Roman Catholic diocese, organise its own school in Colchester to serve the whole of north Essex for those parents who wish to have such a denominational school—not impose itself on a particular geographic area of the town whose parents may not necessarily wish to have their children taught under a religious regime. What parental choice will there be for those in Monkwick and Shrub End who do not want their children to attend a religious academy? Will other secondary schools in Colchester have places available to accept them?
	Academies have a less than impressive track record and are widely opposed by, among others, many Labour MPs and the National Union of Teachers. At a public meeting in Colchester, Mr. Alasdair Smith of the Anti-Academies Alliance observed
	"An academy is owned and controlled by its sponsor and is a law unto itself.
	We elect Councillors to a local education authority and parents elect the Governing Body of a school, but at an academy the democratic involvement of the community is removed."
	Will the Minister confirm that Mr Smith's statement is correct? Will he confirm that an academy sets its own admission policy, and that it is not subject to national agreements on staff pay and conditions? Will he also confirm that the proposed academy in south Colchester would not have to guarantee a place for every child from Monkwick and Shrub End whose parents sought admission?
	Will the Church of England have competition? The prospect of a Church of England-sponsored academy contrasts with a statement made in June by an Essex county council spokesman who was reported in the  Gazette as saying:
	"It is possible for the Army to become an academy sponsor."
	That took Colchester garrison by surprise. The Deputy Commander said that nobody had discussed it with him. Will the Minister comment on whether his Department has had discussions with the Ministry of Defence about the MOD's sponsoring an academy in Colchester?
	On 26 June, the  Gazette reported
	"Colchester Garrison will be asked to make a significant cash investment in creating an academy for Colchester.
	Under the plans, leaked to the Gazette, the Thomas Lord Audley and the Alderman Blaxill Schools would both be shut down and demolished to make way for a new 1,200 place academy.
	It will be built on the site of the TLA while the Alderman Blaxill site, in Shrub End, would be sold off for housing."
	Has the Minister seen the plans that the  Gazette says were leaked to it? Is he satisfied that he has been given the full pack of cards? There appears to have been some dodgy dealing on the part of the Essex education authority
	Colchester is a growing town. Huge new developments are taking place, with several thousand more homes to come in the north, in the central areas, in the former port area in the east, and in the west of the town. Of major significance are at least 2,500 planned new dwellings on land whose nearest local secondary schools are Alderman Blaxill and Thomas Lord Audley. The education authority's projection, which shows a reduction of 500 secondary school places in south Colchester, is ridiculous.
	Whatever "here today, gone tomorrow" Chelmsford-based officials and Tory county councillors are saying, the reality is that the closure of Alderman Blaxill school would be short-termism at its worst. I therefore urge the Minister to get to grips with the county hall wreckers and give Alderman Blaxill school the support and continued future that it deserves, and which the local community looks to the Government to deliver.

Ken Purchase: I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on securing this timely and important short debate. I understand that I may speak for only a few moments in order to give the Minister enough time in which to reply.
	The hon. Member for Colchester should not be surprised that the Tory authority in Essex is keen to implement a Tory policy—that of closing down proper community schools and introducing privately run, privately sponsored, privately managed academies. Unfortunately, however, that is not being done only by Tory authorities: the hon. Gentleman's own colleagues in the north of England have been pushed into the position of accepting an academy as part of its Building Schools for the Future programme, and as a condition of being able to look after its other secondary schools. The same has happened in Labour authorities, including mine. If I may say so—and this is totally separate from anything that happened in Essex—the Labour-controlled Wolverhampton authority and its education policies are beyond criticism, but none the less—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but an Adjournment debate, by its very nature, is narrow, and we are discussing Alderman Blaxill secondary school. I am not so good on the geography of England, but I think that Wolverhampton is some distance from Colchester.

Ken Purchase: As ever, I am grateful for your superb guidance, Mr. Speaker, and I will stick to that very narrow point by making precise comparisons.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned church schools, which are bedevilling—forgive the pun, which was not intended—education in his constituency. The reason given for establishing academies there is that they will provide more parental choice. My constituency has three private schools, a girls grammar school, four Church schools, two foundation schools, a city technology college, Walsall academy, St. Thomas More Catholic school and a raft of specialist schools. In fact, the situation has become impossible for a liberal-minded parent who wants a school for their child that is non-selective, non-sectarian and non-fee-paying. This is how, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, like mine, the choice agenda has resulted not in a wide liberal choice for progressives, but in a narrowing of opportunities, which are restricted basically to those of a regressive understanding of education.
	I shall pick up on a point that concerns our constituencies that has been made by the Public Accounts Committee. It has found that the academy movement is overspending both in capital and start-up, that it does not provide best value, that the sponsors are taking contracts from their schools and that there is a high exclusion rate. I think that you are perhaps getting ready to get to your feet again because my comments are not narrow enough, Mr. Speaker, but I am trying my best to reinforce the hon. Gentleman's point. A Tory policy is being implemented by bully-boy tactics, and it is not, in most cases, in the best educational interests of the young students of this country. I am happy to support the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment debate.

Jim Knight: I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on securing this debate. He has raised the situation with me a number of times through parliamentary questions, and I welcome the opportunity to debate the issues, even though we may not see completely eye to eye. I am sure that Essex county council will take note of his many comments about it, through reading either  Hansard or the faithful reporting of this debate in the Colchester  Gazette.
	The background to this debate is the importance of standards in schools, and the circumstances in which robust intervention, particularly secondary special measures, can become necessary. I want briefly to give some national figures to put the Colchester case into perspective. The hon. Gentleman asked whether Essex county council itself should be put in special measures. He will be disappointed to hear that I am advised that, generally, Essex is assessed as being strong on children's services. Its main weakness is in secondary provision and I shall make some comments about that, but children's services as a whole are in reasonable shape, according to the inspectors of Essex county council—not that it is my job to be its advocate.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of acknowledging the particular problems faced by schools that serve a large number of children from service families. That is one of the reasons why I took measures to ensure that the pupil count—the school census—takes account of and records the children of service families. I made that promise to the Select Committee on Defence when it examined that subject.
	On 1 September, 42 secondary schools were in special measures in this country, six of which were in Essex and, as the hon. Gentleman said, no fewer than three were in Colchester: Sir Charles Lucas, Thomas Lord Audley and Alderman Blaxill schools. Thomas Lord Audley school has now come out of special measures, but it is still under a notice to improve. That means it is still providing an inadequate education for its pupils but Ofsted considers that its leadership has demonstrated the capacity to improve further. I wish it every success.
	Nevertheless, a serious situation undoubtedly remains in these Colchester schools. In 2005, only 38 per cent. of pupils at Alderman Blaxill were achieving five or more grades A* to C GCSEs, which is well below the national and county average of 56 per cent. That should have sent a warning signal both to the local authority and to the school's governors, but rather than improvement, there has been a fall in attainment since. Figures for 2006 show only 34 per cent. achieving their five GCSE passes. Provisional figures for this year are even worse at 24 per cent. If we look at the same figures including English and maths—the basics that are essential if children are to prosper in the future—they fell from 16 per cent. to 14 per cent. between 2005 and 2006. At the same time, Thomas Lord Audley's figures were 26 per cent. in 2005 and 38 per cent. in 2006, and 20 per cent. and 28 per cent. including English and maths, showing an improvement.
	Sad to say, the provisional 2007 results, this time including English and maths, show Alderman Blaxill school with 17 per cent., Thomas Lord Audley school 27 per cent. and Sir Charles Lucas school 26 per cent. In those three Colchester schools, only around one quarter of young people, sometimes less, are leaving with the qualifications they need. So none of us should be satisfied with that. It is clear that pupils in schools like Alderman Blaxill and other local schools have not shared in the school improvements and rising standards of recent years.
	Alderman Blaxill is in a very serious position. The Ofsted report from May this year highlighted the rapid staff turnover, unsatisfactory teaching and learning, inadequate leadership and management, insufficient challenge from the governors, falling rolls and increasing deficit. I should like to quote what the Ofsted inspectors said about some of those points:
	"Students' achievement is unsatisfactory. Standards at the school are too low and are declining. Relatively few students leave with good GCSE results, and many leave with poor literacy and numeracy skills. Students are not appropriately equipped for further study or employment. The school's expectations for students are too low. Assessment and monitoring of progress are weak.
	Most students are not clear what they should do to improve....Unfilled vacancies mean that students have too many temporary teachers so continuity is poor. One student commented that 'there is no point coming to school because we have different teachers every day'".
	On achievement and standards, for which the school received the lowest category, the report said:
	"Overall progress during Key Stage 3 is significantly slower than expected and has declined since 2005. Students' progress in mathematics and English is weak."
	I could go on at length. On leadership and management, which also received a grade 4, the report said:
	"Leadership and management are inadequate. The school fails to provide a satisfactory standard of education for its students."
	Let me now address the concerns of the hon. Member for Colchester about the replacement of the governing body at Alderman Blaxhill. The report also identified serious weaknesses in the way in which the governing body was operating:
	"Governors have not challenged the school's poor performance sufficiently. Pupil numbers are falling, and this is putting additional pressure on the school's financial deficit. The governing body has not ensured that there is a clear strategic direction."
	Similarly, when analysing leadership and management in the school, inspectors found that:
	"Governors, though supportive of the recent changes introduced by the new headteacher, do not challenge or hold the school to account. For example, they have not challenged the school for the lack of improvements since the last inspection and have not ensured that there is clear strategic direction."
	There was also a deterioration in the relationship between the local authority and the governors—the hon. Gentleman mentioned that—which resulted in a delay to the submission of the statement of action following the special measures designation. For those reasons, together with the poor performance I noted earlier, the local authority has taken the step of seeking the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to replace the governing body with an interim executive board, as the hon. Gentleman said. This is an important step towards immediate improvement, though clearly much work needs to be done locally to drive longer term change.
	Local authorities are becoming increasingly aware of the benefit of interim executive boards as they invariably drive forward the necessary changes for schools to recover from special measures. An IEB is usually a small focused group with typically between three and six members, appointed for the full period that it is expected to take to turn the school around. It takes on all the responsibilities of a governing body, including the management of the budget, the curriculum, staffing, pay and performance management, and the appointment of the head teacher and deputy head teacher. The IEB's main functions are to secure a sound basis for future improvement in the school and promote high standards of educational achievement. Members will often have experience of turning round other schools in difficulties or be members of a local authority school improvement service. The members of this IEB have more experience than the former governing body. The chair is Martin North, a consultant head from Havering, and he will be joined by a national strategies expert— [ Interruption. ] My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) says it is a mockery—

Ken Purchase: rose—

Jim Knight: I shall not give way to my hon. Friend. He did not have the courtesy to inform me that he intended to speak in the debate, which is the custom of the House, so I shall not offer him the courtesy of allowing him to speak further.
	My Department is working with the local authority urgently to consider plans for improvement at all those schools as well as for the overall future strategy, which is an obligation for us, the local authority and everyone involved in the Colchester community, because the children of that community deserve better. Despite the comments of the hon. Member for Colchester, I believe replacement of the governing body was fully justified. Moreover, to preserve some continuity, the chair of the governors has been invited to sit on the board, although not as chair.
	The position is difficult, but academies are one model that can help to turn the situation around. They represent a fundamentally different education model, with greater independence and greater involvement of local partners, helping to involve the whole community in a transformation of the school. Academies are set up to address entrenched problems in areas such as Colchester. We do not expect all of them to be an overnight success, but to make steady and sustained improvements in achievement.
	I am not in a position to talk about the sponsor; those discussions are at an early stage. However, the local authority will have a place on the governing body, which would have to abide by the admissions code—that would be written into the funding agreement—so the questions the hon. Gentleman raises about admissions do not follow.
	Some academies are already having a dramatic impact; for example, last year the number of children in academies with five GCSEs at grades A* to C improved by 6 per cent. compared to 2 per cent. nationally. The impact of those improvements should not be underestimated in communities with long-standing legacies of underachievement. The real test of that success has been the way in which parents have responded, flocking to take up places in academies.
	Academies are proving to be an effective and popular solution in communities such as Colchester, which is why the option is being explored by the local authority. What is clear is that there can be no tolerance of the status quo in this place; as I said, the pupils and their families deserve better. The popularity of academies contrasts with the current situation at Alderman Blaxill. I realise that the hon. Member for Colchester said that the school is massively popular with the community and much loved, and he referred to the signatures on the petition. However, there are only 70 pupils in year 7 and only 16 first preferences for admission next year, with one week to go.

Bob Russell: I am surprised there are even 16.

Jim Knight: What does that suggest about parents voting with their feet.
	As the hon. Gentleman knows, school organisation is a matter for Essex county council. Decisions about closure and merger are ultimately for the council to make and he needs to continue his robust exchanges with the county council, campaigning, as he does so assiduously, for his constituents and their interests as he sees them.

Bob Russell: I recognise the problems the Minister describes, which I would lay at the door of the local education authority that has allowed the situation to occur. What would happen if the consultation showed that the people of Monkwick and Shrub End wanted the £27 million to be invested in their two community schools rather than in a new academy? Will the Government allow them to have that capital for their schools?

Jim Knight: The capital investment to which the hon. Gentleman refers will come about only on the basis of something that is proven in turning around results. Investing in academies is not about investing in buildings; it is about investing in improved leadership, focus and an ethos that turns around standards. That is the consistent record of the 83 existing academies.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to 2,500 new homes. That, too, is an issue that Essex county council has to address, but we will work with the council on serious interventions to improve things.
	In conclusion, I invite the hon. Gentleman to rethink. He is well known as a champion for Colchester and he is impatient about the lack of standards, so I hope that he will want to work with us to ensure that the academy proposed by Essex to address the poor standards at Alderman Blaxill is a success. I am sure that is what his constituents want him to do. In the end, we can all agree that the standards in those Colchester schools are not good enough for his constituents. We should all work together to resolve the problems.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.